borborygmus

I agree and wasn't it all three GOP speakers who went after Clinton for having a blow job and all three, Gingrich, Livingston and Hastert demonstrated so well their family values. However no problem all they have to do is announce they are born again and all is forgiven.

Geez, for the one billionth time it wasn't about a blow job. That's like claiming Charlie Mason has been in prison for 40+ years for smoking weed.

It was always about a blow job but they wrapped it up so that it sounded a lot more serious than that.

It was wrapped up in his own words. Bill is the one that lied under oath, not the federal official he lied to.

Impeachment is supposed to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless you take misdemeanors not to be modified by "high" (so that jaywalking would be impeachable) then what you've got is an impeachment for lying to a civil jury. Most constitutional scholars don't think that qualifies as a high crime. It's important to remember that this whole impeachment thing started about Whitewater. There proved to nothing there. The special prosecutor at the time, Robert Fiske, said the whole thing should be wrapped up. There's nothing here. Then David Sentelle, a very right wing and political judge, a good friend of Jesse Helm, appointed Kenneth Starr to go on a fishing expedition. And that's how the impeachment happened.

For any people to prosper, they must continually produce "New Wealth." We've all heard the saying that a bunch of guys can't stand in a circle with their hands in each others' pockets and all get rich. They have to bring in New Wealth to improve their collective lot.

New Wealth can be produced by manufacturing, and at many stages. It's produced when iron ore is mined from the ground. It's increased when the ore is processed into steel. It's increased when that steel is shaped into raw materials that people will buy. It's increased when that new steel is made into a new car or refrigerator.

All along the line many people get part of that New Wealth. The truckers that haul it and the people that made those trucks. The people who build the manufacturing plants. The people who work at the utility companies and the advertisers who sell. The workers on the assembly lines and the sales people and the mechanics who keep it all running...

THIS is a sustainable economy but we've sent too much of it to China and Mexico and they've made the New Wealth from it. It has to stop if America is going to prosper again.

Cheers.

Trump will be the next president of the US by a landslide.

Given how successful the .01 percent has been in gutting labor unions, it's extremely dubious that blue collars workers are going to share much in the benefits of increased manufacturing. And given how the Republicans have put a pro-business anti labor Supreme court in place, only makes it worse. In fact, most of the value of increases in productivity since the 90's have gone to the wealthy. Since they have a much lower marginal propensity to spend, and there's so much liquidity sloshing around, making the rich richer isn't going to help what left of the middle class and blue collar workers.

What will be of immediate help to them is an increase in the minimum wage. And as in issue in the coming election it will be wildly popular among Trump voters. And you know who's opposed to raising the minimum wage? Donald Trump. And you know who's in favor? Hillary Clinton.

Trump has around ten billion dollars. It would really be pretty smart to listen to Trump who is engaged in big biz all over the world instead of listening to your bar stool buddies.

Cheers.

That's what Trump says he's worth. The consensus is that it's more like 4.5 billion.

I get it. He's a symbol of Americana. My Dad, a proud WW2 veteran, loved his movies. His favorite was TRUE GRIT. I think, give it a break. It's kind of a free speech thing too. People are free to make racists statements. I still don't think honoring John Wayne is explicitly endorsing racism.

I guess I'm agreeing with the people who think "P.C." often gets out of hand. Not saying such things shouldn't be considered, but it can go too far. I think rejecting John Wayne Day probably goes too far, as well as campus obsession with so called MICRO-aggressions in speech.

When people criticize "PC," it's because they themselves are not the target. I'm sure you would think differently if the speech offended you personally. It shouldn't be that way. I'm not black, but I can see how such a statement would offend black people. And if someone as respected and admired as John Wayne can say it with impunity, then of course everyone would think that it's ok.

I suppose you missed my comment that personally I have no problem with people staging WAGNER operas. To add, or WAGNER FESTIVALS. Or WAGNER DAYS.

Separate the "artists" if you can call Wayne an artist from their political / racial speech.

How about Mel Gibson?

I don't have a problem with honoring his acting career or showing his movies to people that still want to see them (probably not very many as they're so dated).

They're not endorsing his politics.

Any more than I have a problem with staging Wagner operas.

Because they're not just honoring his acting career

'Several lawmakers supported the resolution, recalling Wayne as an American hero whose family created a namesake cancer foundation after his death.'

"Opposing the John Wayne Day resolution is like opposing apple pie, fireworks, baseball, the Free Enterprise system and the Fourth of July!" he said later in a written statement.

For some reason John Wayne has long been considered a hero by the American right. Yet this is a guy who managed, despite his patriotism, to avoid serving in WW2. You know, the good war. The one that virtually everyone in the country was united behind for its entire duration. The only time John Wayne ever wore the uniform of his country was on a movie set. Just another hypocritical careerist.

Thanks for the advice everybody. I did do a google search for the Bangkok Bank at KSK. I'm guessing that it's located inside the Central building there. Is that correct?

One point I've seen raised time and again is that "We can't judge the Israelis' actions on the West Bank because we're not there." And, of course, the same people who raise this point also say, "We can't judge the Palestinians' actions on the West Bank because we're not there." Except, of course, they do judge the Palestinians' actions and judge them severely.

I think we have got way off track guys. The thread was about the UN delegates signing a document to say they will take steps to address climate change.

I don't think anyone disputes the climate is changing, heck it always has done from the beginning of time.

The debate is 1. Whether the whole or part of the current change is due to man's activities;

and 2. Whether anything significant will be done by the politicians who signed the "Accord".

For me, 1. "Part" is more than likely, but to quantify the scale of that effect is open to partisan opinions -on both sides. For 2. Not a cat in hells chance

If what you mean by partisan opinions refers to political orientation, then no, the degree of climate change is not open to partisan opinions. There may be differences of opinions among scientists, but they are not driven by political opinions, but by what gaps there still are in the science. And it wouldn't necessarily be "both sides" but any number of sides depending upon the issue in contention.

Just how do they expect to slow the imaginary warming rate? More money more meetings? Never before in the history of the human race has there been so many idiots clumped together in one place. If they really wanted to do something for the planet earth they should get tough on the Asian countries burning off crop stubble and creating the haze that covers vast areas every year. This would make more sense. Maybe after they all sign this so called deal to slow climate warming they could start a new agreement to stop all volcanoe's errupting and creating more damage to the climate than CO2 ever does. Maybe they should go back to school and study just what CO2 does. It supports life and has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Really stupid politicians, maybe they can start WW111 as it seems they are so stupid its quite on the cards.

Volcanoes cause Global cooling not warming. They emit trillions of tons of aerosol particulates into the upper Troposphere that reflect sunlight back into space. Burning of crops stubble produces particulate matter into the lower sea level atmosphere (where we breath). Nothing really to do with CO2 levels and is regional so requires a regional solution not a Global Solution. Maybe you need to go back to school. CO2 is one of the Greenhouse gasses that contribute an increase in Earth's temperature by +30⁰c without it we freeze solid with too much it becomes a pollutant and elevates Earth's temperatures where most of the human race would not survive. Although CO2 is a key element in plant photosynthesis Earth's vegetation can only absorb natural occurring CO2 plus a small proportion of man made CO2. CO2 introduced by man burning Fossil Fuels is easily identifiable and quantifiable as it has a different Carbon14 Isotope attached.

It would seem the stupid politicians may have a better grasp of the actual basic science on Global Warming / Climate Change than you appear to demonstrate.

If politicians actually believed it was possible to reverse CC they would do something to change it. As they have not, and are not going to do anything that will change CC ( which is impossible anyway ) they obviously do not believe it can be changed.

There is a difference between reducing pollution, recycling and building renewable energy sources and reducing CC. Those are an admirable goal and would make life better for all, but will do ZERO to stop CC.

If Obama believed in the rhetoric he'd stop using AF1, and if governments believed in it they'd stop private cars being sold, stop mass air travel and build nuclear power stations and electric railways.

Its pretty clear volcanism is variously responsible for both warming and cooling; it just depends (example: difference between submerged eruptions or not). There is some pretty clear evidence of drastic warming secondary to or concurrent with exception volcanism triggering the younger dryas/bringing us out of the younger dryas. At first glance I agree, seems like heating only. Its not. In any event, as an update on 28 April 2016, it continues to be clear the science does not remotely support the political agenda of "Climate Change."

The current highest estimate for volcanic emission of CO2 is around 600 million tons per year. That does sound like a lot until you compare it to human generated CO2: 29 billion tons per year. So even using the highest estimate volcanic emissions of CO2 are just slightly higher than 2% of total yearly emissions of CO2. And remember, that 2% is based on the highest estimate which is something of an outlier.

What's more, new evidence is emerging that humans pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may actually be increasing volcanic activity. In areas that are heavily fraught with glaciers, like iceland, the weight of the glaciers actually keeps the hot rocks below solid. As warming increases, glaciers melt and the pressure lessens. As the pressure lessens those hot rocks turn into magma which is what lava is called when it hasn't yet emerged to the surface. More pools of magma means more likelihood of volcanism.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/rising-sea-levels-volcanoes-eruptions/

Anyone know where to get ketostix in Thailand?

I need to discuss something rather complicated and want to communicate with someone who has good English skills.