Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

George Conklin wrote:
"Jean H." wrote in message
...
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.
hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
Bill Baka
agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

Stem cell research is caught up in theological debates, since the Roman
Catholic Church is against such research too.


That is part of the problem I have with the Republicans, since so many
claim to be "Born Again" Christians that I am wondering about the church
trying to run the United States. I don't want the Vatican dictating our
policies, or a dumbo like Bush thinking he's doing God's work.
Can politics get much worse?
Bill Baka

"bill" wrote in message
m...
Jean H. wrote:
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.

hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
Bill Baka

agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could
have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of
screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of
people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way.
As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last
2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core..

Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
Bill Baka

1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc.
2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not
recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform
close to britain!

Jean
------------------------
http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...wcountries.htm
New Countries of the World
From Matt Rosenberg,
Your Guide to Geography.

Jan 2 2006
The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990
Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of
the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most
of the newly independent states.
You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new
countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing
will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the
USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted
independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the
remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell
completely on December 26, 1991.


Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Estonia (September 1991)
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia (September 1991)
Lithuania (September 1991)
Moldova
Russia
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Former Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992
Croatia, June 25, 1991
Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the
United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February
of 1994
Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992
Slovenia, June 25, 1991
Other New Countries

Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes.


March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa

May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen

October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified
Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain

September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust
Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and
gained independence as a former colony

September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline
Islands, became independent from the United States

January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent
nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved

May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained
independence

October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific
Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a
former colony

May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975
but became independent of Indonesia in 2002

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill wrote:

Jean H. wrote:
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.

hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
maybe Truman.
Bill Baka

agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
bill of right.

Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.

Dave Head

In article ,
Dave Head wrote:

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
issue with you and your friends,

Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.

in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.

LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats. The Republicans
are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.
As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:54 -0700, bill wrote:

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin
wrote:


"Lorenzo L. Love" wrote in message
newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...

What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do
not
understand?

What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of populations
is
measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are calculated
by the
census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer
reproducing
themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other
nations of
the world. Stop simply guessing.


No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%.
Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%,
Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A.
By the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there
are 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world
population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05
births/1,000 population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000
population. Whole lot of reproducing going on. The counties that have
negative growth rates are for the most part either tiny or not
something anyone would inspire to. Like Russia which has a population
growth rate of -0.37% but also an infant mortality two and half times
that of the U.S. and a life expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your
ideal for the future of the world?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more
and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it
disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there
are, the less one individual matters."
Isaac Asimov
Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
Bill Baka

Since you missed it, I'll repeat "the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations".
That was as of 5 October, 2006. There may be more by now.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"We are living beyond our means. As a people we have developed a
life-style that is draining the earth of its priceless and irreplaceable
resources without regard for the future of our children and people all
around the world."
Margaret Mead

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:59 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Dave Head wrote:

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into
collecting up all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular
issue with you and your friends,

Which is a crock of ****. You're just telling a lie here.

Not by a long shot. They were never openly pursuing that, because to say it
even they knew was poison. So, they held that view, and worked toward that
goal, but were damn transparent to the rest of us.

For instance, what is gun registration good for? Not tracking guns. Its good
for knowing where the guns are, and then declaring them to be illegal and
expecting people to turn them in. Happened in California with the assault
weapon ban out there (the people, BTW, mostly didn't turn them in - there's
hundreds of thousands of now-illegal "assault" weapons in California society.)

What else is gun registration good for? If you get 'em all registered, then
you institute a tax on gun ownership, and just keep raising it and raising it
until only the wealthly and elite have the wherewithall to keep guns. That's
what the liberal elite is aiming at.

Nts not a crock, its the truth. The liberal Dems were just smart enough not to
say it. Their supporters said it at times, and the occasional politician said
it - it was one of the California Dems, in fact, that said, "If it were up to
me, if I had the power, I'd say, "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs America" ".

The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.

in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California,
New York, and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the
2nd amendment, the rest of the country, those vast seas of red
states, believe that without our guns, the liberals would do just as
they please, and negate even more of the bill of right.

LOL. What crack you been smoking, dude? It's the Republicans that are
tossing your rights into the trash, not the Democrats.

True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

The Republicans
are outstandingly good liars, though, I'll give them credit for that.

Not a patch on gun-grabbing liberal democrats, tho.

As the old saying goes, all political parties die at last from
swallowing their own lies. It's currently the Republicans' turn.

Republican party is not going to die. For that to happen, there would have to
be a credible replacement around somewhere. There isn't. Going to vote for
libertarians? Didn't think so. Nothing else appears to be standing around as
a viable replacement.

In article , Dave Head wrote:

The liberal Dems _were_ most assuredly working toward an eventual confiscation
of _all_ the American citizens guns. That's a fact.

So are the republicans, they just aren't noisy about it. Don't believe
me, research the expansion of the BATF under shrub.

True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
pick one and vote on that. I don't care. The SOB's have to be stopped when
they F with the constitution and specifically its bill of rights.

The 2nd is the trump card of the people. Once the 2nd is completely lost
we won't even have the others on face value.

That's what most americans today don't understand about the second
amendment. It isn't there for hunting or sport, it's there for the people
to protect themselves from a government that has run amuck. It is there
as a final word, the final power of the people. The founders know an
armed populace is not controlable. No military, no matter how strong can
win in the long term against an armed population short of turning that
nation into a worthless, smoldering glass parking lot.

A government run amuck is one that would sieze our property, hold us as
'enemy combatants' if we disagree or oppose it's policies, refuse to
do it's constitutional obligation to secure the borders, and a whole host of
other things that have gone down in recent years.

We either get the Ds and Rs out of office before the electronic voting
machines with all their backdoors and cheating capability (
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ ) get in across the board or we will be
left with just the trump card.

di wrote:
"bill" wrote in message
m...
Jean H. wrote:
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.
hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
Bill Baka
agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could
have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of
screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of
people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way.
As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last
2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core..


BZZZT,
The biggest idiot is in the White House now.
Bill

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:46:02 GMT, Dave Head wrote:

True and not true. Its both. My particular pet amendment is the 2nd. You
pick one and vote on that. I don't care.

The Republicans must just /love/ voters like you. As long as you're allowed
to keep your popgun (no, they're not scared of it - they have much bigger
ones), you don't mind them systematically stripping you of all your other
rights.

Once you're in indefinite detention with no lawyer and no trial, because
your cranky neighbour dobbed you in as a terrorist to someone in Homeland
Security with a quota to fill, your precious 2nd Amendment won't do you
much good at all.

Someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses. In the US,
it seems to be guns. Thank God I don't live there.


--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw