I was prompted to read the article on Global Warming in the Sept. issue of
Nat.Geo.
Very well done and informative. I believe that my point in mentioning it in the
first place was misconstrued a bit.
To clarify, I am not disputing that the globe is apparently warming. The point
I was making is that I don't see the productive side of getting personally
offended when someone doesn't share someone else's personal concern..meaning:
The globe is warming, causes are many, varied and open to discussion. Quoting
from the opening of the Nat. Geo. article..
"But even Kyoto would barely slow the rise of heat trapping gases. Controlling
the increase ' would take 40 successful Kyotos,' says Jerry Mahlman of the
National Center for Atmospheric research. But we've got to do it."..HOW????
I driver a fuel efficient car, I insulate my structures correctly, I recycle
and I've just signed up to buy my electricity from renewable sources. If we all
do all we can, it will still take immeasurably more to make a difference. I
don't see how blaming someone for not lamenting life because they can't stop
Global Warming is helpful.
I find that worrying about things I can't control usually keeps me from action
in an area that I can make a difference in.
Anyway....

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Ah, a topic I really can talk about. Yes, the studies have said that Kyoto
wouldn't change things all that much, and that's why I've said that it's not
worth changing economical structures in order to do 1% better. With the
implementation of Kyoto the outcome would be that no one would adversely be
affected but the major petrolium users, so that means us. Since most of the
technology in the world comes from us, it doesn't make sense to deny the
world the possibility of coming up with technology that would free the world
from the oil constraints.

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and the
world would still be the same.

Not much new here.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
I was prompted to read the article on Global Warming in the Sept. issue of
Nat.Geo.
Very well done and informative. I believe that my point in mentioning it
in the
first place was misconstrued a bit.
To clarify, I am not disputing that the globe is apparently warming. The
point
I was making is that I don't see the productive side of getting personally
offended when someone doesn't share someone else's personal
concern..meaning:
The globe is warming, causes are many, varied and open to discussion.
Quoting
from the opening of the Nat. Geo. article..
"But even Kyoto would barely slow the rise of heat trapping gases.
Controlling
the increase ' would take 40 successful Kyotos,' says Jerry Mahlman of the
National Center for Atmospheric research. But we've got to do
it."..HOW????
I driver a fuel efficient car, I insulate my structures correctly, I
recycle
and I've just signed up to buy my electricity from renewable sources. If
we all
do all we can, it will still take immeasurably more to make a difference.
I
don't see how blaming someone for not lamenting life because they can't
stop
Global Warming is helpful.
I find that worrying about things I can't control usually keeps me from
action
in an area that I can make a difference in.
Anyway....

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Roger W. Norman wrote:

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and the
world would still be the same.

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is. Pick up the new issue of Newsweek. Much of it is devoted to
environmental and energy issues. A very good read.

You can also see it online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264305/site/newsweek/

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.

I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much "dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:
Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.


I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much "dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.

Well, the lopsidedness of what the U.S. has been consuming in energy
resources for many years now is disgraceful, not to mention down right
embarrasing. Your trivialization of the Chinese trying to do something
about *their* responsibility is very telling. If I wasn't American, I
would be tempted to call us ignorant pigs, too. And it is justifiable
with statements such as yours.

I agree this is NOT a party line issue. But there DOES seem to be a
difference on which way the parties lean. And their degree of concern
about the health of our (one and only) planet.

Blind Joni wrote:
Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.


I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much "dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.

Well, the lopsidedness of what the U.S. has been consuming in energy
resources for many years now is disgraceful, not to mention down right
embarrasing. Your trivialization of the Chinese trying to do something
about *their* responsibility is very telling. If I wasn't American, I
would be tempted to call us ignorant pigs, too. And it is justifiable
with statements such as yours.

I agree this is NOT a party line issue. But there DOES seem to be a
difference on which way the parties lean. And their degree of concern
about the health of our (one and only) planet.

Hard to say since we're talking about a population into the billions alone.
China and India have some major problems on being mechanized nations with
their populations because it's almost impossible to provide inexpensive and
pollution free electrical generation. Which is why the Three Gorges dam is
so important to China even though thousands of years of history are no under
water. They made a choice, and it's a non-polluting method of generating
gigawatts of power, so I can't blame them. Their population puts the onus
on them to make big decisions.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.

I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much
"dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Hard to say since we're talking about a population into the billions alone.
China and India have some major problems on being mechanized nations with
their populations because it's almost impossible to provide inexpensive and
pollution free electrical generation. Which is why the Three Gorges dam is
so important to China even though thousands of years of history are no under
water. They made a choice, and it's a non-polluting method of generating
gigawatts of power, so I can't blame them. Their population puts the onus
on them to make big decisions.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.

I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much
"dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is.

I would think this would be the case as they are starting form a much "dirtier"
place so any attempt will yield a bigger result percentage wise.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Thanks Pete. I'll check that out.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Roger W. Norman wrote:

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their
overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and
China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and
the
world would still be the same.

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is. Pick up the new issue of Newsweek. Much of it is devoted to
environmental and energy issues. A very good read.

You can also see it online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264305/site/newsweek/

Thanks Pete. I'll check that out.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Roger W. Norman wrote:

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their
overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and
China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and
the
world would still be the same.

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is. Pick up the new issue of Newsweek. Much of it is devoted to
environmental and energy issues. A very good read.

You can also see it online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264305/site/newsweek/

Roger W. Norman wrote:

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and the
world would still be the same.

Actually China is attempting to do more to solve the problem than the US
is. Pick up the new issue of Newsweek. Much of it is devoted to
environmental and energy issues. A very good read.

You can also see it online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264305/site/newsweek/

Ah, a topic I really can talk about. Yes, the studies have said that Kyoto
wouldn't change things all that much, and that's why I've said that it's not
worth changing economical structures in order to do 1% better. With the
implementation of Kyoto the outcome would be that no one would adversely be
affected but the major petrolium users, so that means us. Since most of the
technology in the world comes from us, it doesn't make sense to deny the
world the possibility of coming up with technology that would free the world
from the oil constraints.

It also doesn't do anything towards lessening global warming because
countries that are signatories of the accord could sell off their overages
to countries that had deficiences, thus allow countries like India and China
to continue to over produce CO2 while countries in Africa who don't burn
anything worth concern could profit from selling their own underages and the
world would still be the same.

Not much new here.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
I was prompted to read the article on Global Warming in the Sept. issue of
Nat.Geo.
Very well done and informative. I believe that my point in mentioning it
in the
first place was misconstrued a bit.
To clarify, I am not disputing that the globe is apparently warming. The
point
I was making is that I don't see the productive side of getting personally
offended when someone doesn't share someone else's personal
concern..meaning:
The globe is warming, causes are many, varied and open to discussion.
Quoting
from the opening of the Nat. Geo. article..
"But even Kyoto would barely slow the rise of heat trapping gases.
Controlling
the increase ' would take 40 successful Kyotos,' says Jerry Mahlman of the
National Center for Atmospheric research. But we've got to do
it."..HOW????
I driver a fuel efficient car, I insulate my structures correctly, I
recycle
and I've just signed up to buy my electricity from renewable sources. If
we all
do all we can, it will still take immeasurably more to make a difference.
I
don't see how blaming someone for not lamenting life because they can't
stop
Global Warming is helpful.
I find that worrying about things I can't control usually keeps me from
action
in an area that I can make a difference in.
Anyway....

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Your understanding is indeed very limited in that case. The US uses
by far more energy than it produces, and more resources, which in a
way is the same thing.

I meant that the US uses say ..25% of the energy and produces 25% of the Worlds
GNP.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

On 16 Sep 2004 17:38:23 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

Your understanding is indeed very limited in that case. The US uses
by far more energy than it produces, and more resources, which in a
way is the same thing.

I meant that the US uses say ..25% of the energy and produces 25% of the Worlds
GNP.

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:
The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".

And, in direct corralation to your premise, it still remains fact that
the conservation efforts starting now could, and should have been
started many decades ago. They weren't. Because, as you point out, we
had the "money" to abuse the situation, and it was in "big oils" best
interest to WASTE those resources. Just because we had the money, that
doesn't mean it was right. Or smart. Very SHORT TERM thinking. And the
present administration is continuing in that tradition.

I do honestly think the situation would be a little less critical right
now had Gore (been appointed) president instead of Bush. Of course we
will never know.

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Blind Joni wrote:
The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing
them.

You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".

So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

Glenn D.

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


Blind Joni wrote:
The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing
them.

You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".

So what you're saying is that the US is offering the best price for scarce
resources, and is paying the same price as anyone else for non-scarce goods?
The countries that sell us resources don't have to, do they?

Glenn D.

Pete Dimsman wrote:


Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far
more than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck,
which is why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing them.


You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".


Making sure that oil was to be sold for dollars at about the same time we went off the gold standard was a great way to insure the continued viability of the Dollar...

Pete Dimsman wrote:


Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far
more than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck,
which is why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not
stealing them.


You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".


Making sure that oil was to be sold for dollars at about the same time we went off the gold standard was a great way to insure the continued viability of the Dollar...

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

Just in case your Hummer doesn't use enough gas, you can always get one
of these:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...5a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041

Truck maker unveils a monster pickup
Navistar's 14,500-pound vehicle gets 7 miles a gallon

Blind Joni wrote:
The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.


I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

You CAN'T put a dollar value on everything. There is a finite amount of
fossil fuel available, and we took a good portion of that while it was
still cheap. Because we have (or had) the money to pay for them, doesn't
change the fact that we have and continue to use an imporportionate
amount of those resources. Maybe "stealing" isn't the right word, you
can call it "taking".

And, in direct corralation to your premise, it still remains fact that
the conservation efforts starting now could, and should have been
started many decades ago. They weren't. Because, as you point out, we
had the "money" to abuse the situation, and it was in "big oils" best
interest to WASTE those resources. Just because we had the money, that
doesn't mean it was right. Or smart. Very SHORT TERM thinking. And the
present administration is continuing in that tradition.

I do honestly think the situation would be a little less critical right
now had Gore (been appointed) president instead of Bush. Of course we
will never know.

Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

Are we taking any oil?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

Are we taking any oil?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

Usually, yes. But recently, they've decided it's easier to just make up
lies about WMDs so they can just invade oil rich countries & take the oil.

On 16 Sep 2004 22:13:39 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

That's not really true if you look a little deeper. Historically we
have used our military power to manipulate our access to raw materials
that we needed, and to keep prices favorable to the US. This is what
allows our corporations to amass such great wealth. The CIA and the
American military have worked to insure that we continue to get these
resources by constantly interfering in other country's affairs,
propping up authoritarian leaders, rigging elections, promoting
assinations, etc etc. The average person in these resource-rich places
gets no benefit from the sale of these resources, the money tending to
stay with the ruler of the country, his extended family, and their
cronies. The US practices a type of economic colonialism enforced by
violence if neccessary. This is a really big subject and I'm too tired
to go into it fully at the moment, but I suggest you do some reading,
you will surely be enlightened, this book is a pretty good start:

U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II -- William Blum
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Every conflict we have been involved in since WWII has at it's heart
been about the control of resources.

On 16 Sep 2004 22:13:39 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.

That's not really true if you look a little deeper. Historically we
have used our military power to manipulate our access to raw materials
that we needed, and to keep prices favorable to the US. This is what
allows our corporations to amass such great wealth. The CIA and the
American military have worked to insure that we continue to get these
resources by constantly interfering in other country's affairs,
propping up authoritarian leaders, rigging elections, promoting
assinations, etc etc. The average person in these resource-rich places
gets no benefit from the sale of these resources, the money tending to
stay with the ruler of the country, his extended family, and their
cronies. The US practices a type of economic colonialism enforced by
violence if neccessary. This is a really big subject and I'm too tired
to go into it fully at the moment, but I suggest you do some reading,
you will surely be enlightened, this book is a pretty good start:

U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II -- William Blum
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Every conflict we have been involved in since WWII has at it's heart
been about the control of resources.

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

I understand this but aren't we BUYING those resources..we're not stealing
them.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

On 16 Sep 2004 17:38:23 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

Your understanding is indeed very limited in that case. The US uses
by far more energy than it produces, and more resources, which in a
way is the same thing.

I meant that the US uses say ..25% of the energy and produces 25% of the Worlds
GNP.

The problem is that the US 7% of the population consumes far, far more
than it's share of the worlds resources. And most of the those
resources belonged to other countries... it's a stacked deck, which is
why so much of the world resents America.

Your understanding is indeed very limited in that case. The US uses
by far more energy than it produces, and more resources, which in a
way is the same thing.

I meant that the US uses say ..25% of the energy and produces 25% of the Worlds
GNP.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

playon

(Blind Joni) wrote: Are we taking any oil?

**** yes. We are buying it of course, ...

Stealing = buying. Doh! If the world indeed does hate Americans as you
claim Al, for the reason of our stupidity, *you* are in big trouble.

... but since the oil infrastructer
and export will all be managed by oil corporations (friends of Bush
and Cheney's) all the money will go to US companies.

How about Theresa Heinz Kerry's MASSIVE holdings in Halliburton Dude? And
she refuses to release her financial records and disclose her investments,
unlike Bush and Cheney who have released all their records and put their
investments into blind trusts.

Fact is because of this non-disclosure it's the Democrat who is the
ethically challenged candidate, by every standard set in past Presidential
elections.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

On 18 Sep 2004 12:26:24 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon

(Blind Joni) wrote: Are we taking any oil?

**** yes. We are buying it of course, ...

Stealing = buying. Doh! If the world indeed does hate Americans as you
claim Al, for the reason of our stupidity, *you* are in big trouble.

You claim we are not hated?

Al

You claim we are not hated?


That's what I walk around worrying about. A lot of people might hate me
personally..doesn't affect how I live or what I do...I have priorities and
values that I live by.Haters will hate. I don't hate anyone..do you?
Some religions teach you not to hate..others obviously..perhaps wrongly..do
not.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

You claim we are not hated?


That's what I walk around worrying about. A lot of people might hate me
personally..doesn't affect how I live or what I do...I have priorities and
values that I live by.Haters will hate. I don't hate anyone..do you?
Some religions teach you not to hate..others obviously..perhaps wrongly..do
not.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

On 18 Sep 2004 12:26:24 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon

(Blind Joni) wrote: Are we taking any oil?

**** yes. We are buying it of course, ...

Stealing = buying. Doh! If the world indeed does hate Americans as you
claim Al, for the reason of our stupidity, *you* are in big trouble.

You claim we are not hated?

Al

playon

(Blind Joni) wrote: Are we taking any oil?

**** yes. We are buying it of course, ...

Stealing = buying. Doh! If the world indeed does hate Americans as you
claim Al, for the reason of our stupidity, *you* are in big trouble.

... but since the oil infrastructer
and export will all be managed by oil corporations (friends of Bush
and Cheney's) all the money will go to US companies.

How about Theresa Heinz Kerry's MASSIVE holdings in Halliburton Dude? And
she refuses to release her financial records and disclose her investments,
unlike Bush and Cheney who have released all their records and put their
investments into blind trusts.

Fact is because of this non-disclosure it's the Democrat who is the
ethically challenged candidate, by every standard set in past Presidential
elections.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

They don't have to study politics to know what the US is doing, it is
blatantly obvious to them.


Everyone has a story. You know the old example. Ten people see an
accident..eyewitnesses..and guess how many different stories we will hear about
it? Now..go half a world away...etc..etc. Must all be true!!




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637