Discussion:
Bloomberg Takes SUV To Office
(too old to reply)
George Conklin
2007-08-01 11:47:57 UTC
Permalink
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public. Now the
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote subway
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters. This is
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was his
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of electricity
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the middle class
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------

He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he takes
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain about
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New Yorkers to
follow his environmentally friendly example.

But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average straphanger's
ride.

On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked up
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop a
five-minute walk away.

------------

So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
drydem
2007-08-01 12:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public. Now the
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote subway
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters. This is
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was his
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of electricity
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the middle class
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------
He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he takes
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain about
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New Yorkers to
follow his environmentally friendly example.
But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average straphanger's
ride.
On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked up
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop a
five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.


Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
George Conklin
2007-08-01 13:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public. Now the
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote subway
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters. This is
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was his
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of electricity
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the middle class
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------
He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he takes
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain about
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New Yorkers to
follow his environmentally friendly example.
But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average
straphanger's
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
ride.
On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked up
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop a
five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=todaysp
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want.
William
2007-08-01 14:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public. Now
the
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote
subway
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters. This is
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was his
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of
electricity
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the middle
class
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------
He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he
takes
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain
about
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New
Yorkers to
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
follow his environmentally friendly example.
But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average
straphanger's
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
ride.
On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked
up
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop
a
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want.
That's all politics is today. It's never *Really* for the greater
good, it's just who can look
the best in the public eye. I've seen George W Bush make a awful
attempt at fake crying when taking about the dead troops in Iraq. It
was quite perverted. We need politicians that are real.
George Conklin
2007-08-01 15:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public.
Now
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote
subway
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters.
This is
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was his
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of
electricity
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the middle
class
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------
He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he
takes
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain
about
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New
Yorkers to
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
follow his environmentally friendly example.
But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average
straphanger's
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
ride.
On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is picked
up
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to City
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway stop
a
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want.
That's all politics is today. It's never *Really* for the greater
good, it's just who can look
the best in the public eye. I've seen George W Bush make a awful
attempt at fake crying when taking about the dead troops in Iraq. It
was quite perverted. We need politicians that are real.
Well, Jimmy Carter was real and they called him a nerd because of it.
The Sierra Club is upper class snobs who want the average person to cut back
while the do not.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-08-01 15:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public.
Now
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
New York Times proves it. He takes a Chevrolet Suburban to a remote
subway
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
stop, so he can be seen emerging from the subway for reporters.
This is
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
just like Kerry saying he did not drive a Suburban because it was
his
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
family's car!!! Or Al Gore using 10 times average amounts of
electricity
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
while preaching Puritan drivel for the rest of us. Getting the
middle
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
class
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
out of cars may be Bloomberg's goal, but it is not a goal for him.
-------
He is public transportation's loudest cheerleader, boasting that he
takes
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
the subway "virtually every day." He has told residents who complain
about
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
overcrowded trains to "get real" and he constantly encourages New
Yorkers to
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
follow his environmentally friendly example.
But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's commute is not your average
straphanger's
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
ride.
On mornings that he takes the subway from home, Mr. Bloomberg is
picked
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
up
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
at his Upper East Side town house by a pair of king-size Chevrolet
Suburbans. The mayor is driven 22 blocks to the subway station at
59th
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Street and Lexington Avenue, where he can board an express train to
City
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local subway
stop
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
a
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the
average
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical
of
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open
space
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have
excuses,
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want.
That's all politics is today. It's never *Really* for the greater
good, it's just who can look
the best in the public eye. I've seen George W Bush make a awful
attempt at fake crying when taking about the dead troops in Iraq. It
was quite perverted. We need politicians that are real.
Well, Jimmy Carter was real and they called him a nerd because of it.
The Sierra Club is upper class snobs who want the average person to cut back
while the do not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Somebody ask Georgie Boy if global warming is real, or made up? If
the melting of the glaciers and the Arctic is just something that is
going on for a few years then it will all be back to normal?

Also ask Georgie Boy if and when gas will be back to $1 a gal?

Finally ask Georgie Boy why Wal Mart and retail in general is
concerned about high energy prices.

If this keeps up, W-M will have to cut Georgie Boy's subsidies.

Randy
drydem
2007-08-03 07:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air, the reduce the regional surface temperature,
and work to maintain moisture/water in the ground
(which is important during times of drought). I'm not
part of the Sierra Club or any environmentalist
group but I recognize that humanity needs to support
a signficant amount of woodlands/forestry on earth
if we seek to continue our existance on earth. It is
simply a matter of the long term self-preservation of
humanity. I'll also support protecting watershed areas
because of the similar reasoning; I want to protect
the local water supply that the community draws from.
In the capacity that is afford to me, I've supported the
reduction of any risk of contamination to our local
watershed areas.

Urban planners are more often than not proponents
and advocates of development(those wealthy enough
to support large expensive projects) or those seeking
support (of large grants of monies) for development.

For my part, I represent the interest of a community
of over 700 households - when I go up to the planning
board or the local government to argue a zoning
ordinance or land use issue - often I meet up with
multi-millionaires, hi price lawyers, large
corporations, top government officials, and
architectural firms. My observation from looking
at others in the field has been the NIMBYism
label is used to discredit opponents (sort of like how
people label each other conservatives and liberals)
but it is rarely used as a reason in the political
struggle over land use. Often my arguments are
based on public safety, long term economic viablity,
and adequate public infrastructure. However, I
have also found that my local government
is just as concern with preserving the private
property values because part of their revenues
is derived from local property taxes. Local
governments want to avoid any development
which might detracts from existing property
values and thus might have a negative
effects existing local government revenues.
george conklin
2007-08-03 12:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half the
year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-03 14:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half the
year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small farms
have a variety of things that they produce.
george conklin
2007-08-03 17:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had to
depend on them.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-03 17:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
george conklin
2007-08-03 17:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them. Housing
is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than tobacco farming
was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-03 18:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.
george conklin
2007-08-03 19:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Aug 1, 4:47 am, "George Conklin"
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the
average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare
half the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses?
Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we
had to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.
Housing is less intensive than farming, with more tree cover too, much
more. Much farmland has been abandoned to trees anyway...
drydem
2007-08-04 00:06:28 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 3, 11:05 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the
average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have
excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses? Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.-
Yes - Forest are important because they are CO2 sinks (they remove CO2
and creating O2).
Today's large farms that supply the produce in your supermarket is not
necessarily from
the same state or even the same country, larger agribusinesses has the
capacity to
ship produce from across the global. However, the "open space"
government policy
in the DC area - is focused on support local agricultural businesses.
george conklin
2007-08-04 00:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
On Aug 3, 11:05 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Aug 1, 4:47 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the
public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the
average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them
open
space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have
excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never
had
a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses?
Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.-
Yes - Forest are important because they are CO2 sinks (they remove CO2
and creating O2).
Today's large farms that supply the produce in your supermarket is not
necessarily from
the same state or even the same country, larger agribusinesses has the
capacity to
ship produce from across the global. However, the "open space"
government policy
in the DC area - is focused on support local agricultural businesses.
Yes, all those tangerines grow in DC and Virginia.
drydem
2007-08-05 13:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
On Aug 3, 11:05 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Aug 1, 4:47 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the
public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt
the
average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are
typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them
open
space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have
excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never
had
a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses?
Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if we had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.-
Yes - Forest are important because they are CO2 sinks (they remove CO2
and creating O2).
Today's large farms that supply the produce in your supermarket is not
necessarily from
the same state or even the same country, larger agribusinesses has the
capacity to
ship produce from across the global. However, the "open space"
government policy
in the DC area - is focused on support local agricultural businesses.
Yes, all those tangerines grow in DC and Virginia.-
Are you trying to be an idiot?
george conklin
2007-08-05 21:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by drydem
On Aug 3, 11:05 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
On Aug 1, 6:52 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Aug 1, 4:47 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the
public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a
local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've
provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
Post by George Conklin
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt
the
average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are
typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them
open
space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have
excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never
had
a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture,
bare
half
the year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses?
Doubletalk.
No, you are the big proponent of agribusiness monoculture. Most small
farms have a variety of things that they produce.
Small farms are irrelevant today. Most Americans would starve if
we
had
to depend on them.
Then quit being such a hypocrite about large farms, if that is what you
believe!
Large farms are required today. I never said we did not need them.
Housing is a less intensive use of tobacco farms, for example, than
tobacco farming was. Or cotton, etc. Or corn.
If you noticed, drydem was advocating for the preservation of forests.-
Yes - Forest are important because they are CO2 sinks (they remove CO2
and creating O2).
Today's large farms that supply the produce in your supermarket is not
necessarily from
the same state or even the same country, larger agribusinesses has the
capacity to
ship produce from across the global. However, the "open space"
government policy
in the DC area - is focused on support local agricultural businesses.
Yes, all those tangerines grow in DC and Virginia.-
Are you trying to be an idiot?
No, that is your province. As John Edward's wife said, she might not be
able to eat another tangerine again if we went to local growing. At least
she was not pretending that locally-grown products would or could meet out
needs these days. You are not that far along yet.
drydem
2007-08-03 23:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
I knew that Bloomberg's transit stand was a fake for the public...
Hall. His drivers zip past his neighborhood station, a local
subway stop a five-minute walk away.
A normal commuter would more likely be walking to the local
subway station if its were only five minutes away. I've provided
a reference/link for this story below. This story goes on to
say that the mayor's SUV is a flexfuel vehicle and that
based on the reporter's observation that Bloomberg is only
taking the subway 2 times a week. The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi. The
reporter/author notes that by using the motor vehicle over
mass transit the mayor is able to shave off 1/3 his commute
time. The SUVs in question are owned and operated
by the NYPD. The NYPD takes care of the security detail
for NYC's mayor.
Mayor Takes the Subway - by Way of S.U.V.
MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM. New York Times. August 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html?_r=1&ref=...
aper&oref=slogin
Post by drydem
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/mayor.1-106908.php
------------
So there. We know how the rich behave. They want to hurt the average
person, while pretending to take the subway.
One of the risk of doing a publicity stunt is that it can
backfire and have a negative or reverse effect (of its
intention) if it appears deceptive or malicious.
Al Gore and Kerry are permanent publicty stunts? No, they are typical of
the well-to-do who want everyone else to cut back to leave them open space
on the roads to do what they want with less traffic. They all have excuses,
but the result is always the same, and urban planners have never had a
problem with the rich doing what they want
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air,
Farmland stripped the land and turned it into monoculture, bare half the
year. Yet people want to "protect" that from houses?
That depends on the region you talking about - in certain
areas farming can be done for more than half the year.
However, with multiple harvests per year comes the risk
of soil nutrients depletion. While a great many *new*
homes are build on farmland some *new* homes are
being build where there once was woodlands - in the DC
area some new developments are being built where
there was once a mature forests. One of the reasons local
government are trying to reserve (by zoning ordinances)
farmland is

1) the local government can't afford to provide
for the additional infrastructure to accomodate
any new additional residents if the homes are built, e.g.

a) roads, traffic controls, mass transit services
b) schools
c) fire and rescue
d) police
e) public libraries
f) recreational facilities

2) farmland represent agricultural businesses that
are a source of revenue for the local government
via taxes AND an regional export which in theory
helps drive the local economy. A local government
tries to all it can to protect the basis of its
existing source of revenues.

3) Unlike people, farms and business do not
require additional schools to be built.
Education is a hefty chunk of the cost
of running a local government - if you can reduce
the number of residents you can reduce the cost
of education and thus government expenditures.


These financial reason are very compelling but are
pretty useless in trying to advocate some type of
forest management of local woodlands. Unless the
woodlands are being professionally managed by
forestry/lumber company - the woodlands cannot
provide in prolong an sustainable form of income.
The lack of income from privately owned woodland
areas makes inducing private stewartship of mature
woodlands of private lands problematic at best
and impossible at worst. While speciality
agribusiness like tree nurserys do create many
trees, but those trees never reach the same level
of maturity as those in the forest and thus don't
provide the same ecological benefits.
george conklin
2007-08-04 00:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
These financial reason are very compelling but are
pretty useless in trying to advocate some type of
forest management of local woodlands. Unless the
woodlands are being professionally managed by
forestry/lumber company - the woodlands cannot
provide in prolong an sustainable form of income.
What you are saying is that people never pay for themselves, but trees
might, if managed. Based on that, we need to kill off people and replace
them with trees. You are logical, I'll have to admit that.
drydem
2007-08-05 13:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
These financial reason are very compelling but are
pretty useless in trying to advocate some type of
forest management of local woodlands. Unless the
woodlands are being professionally managed by
forestry/lumber company - the woodlands cannot
provide in prolong an sustainable form of income.
What you are saying is that people never pay for themselves, but trees
might, if managed. Based on that, we need to kill off people and replace
them with trees. You are logical, I'll have to admit that.
Don't be an idiot.
george conklin
2007-08-05 21:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
These financial reason are very compelling but are
pretty useless in trying to advocate some type of
forest management of local woodlands. Unless the
woodlands are being professionally managed by
forestry/lumber company - the woodlands cannot
provide in prolong an sustainable form of income.
What you are saying is that people never pay for themselves, but trees
might, if managed. Based on that, we need to kill off people and replace
them with trees. You are logical, I'll have to admit that.
Don't be an idiot.
Being an idiot is what you post. People are of value.
Amy Blankenship
2007-08-06 14:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
These financial reason are very compelling but are
pretty useless in trying to advocate some type of
forest management of local woodlands. Unless the
woodlands are being professionally managed by
forestry/lumber company - the woodlands cannot
provide in prolong an sustainable form of income.
What you are saying is that people never pay for themselves, but trees
might, if managed. Based on that, we need to kill off people and replace
them with trees. You are logical, I'll have to admit that.
Don't be an idiot.
Being an idiot is what you post. People are of value.
You'd value them and everything else right out of existence if you were
making public policy.

rotten
2007-08-03 18:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air, the reduce the regional surface temperature,
and work to maintain moisture/water in the ground
(which is important during times of drought). I'm not
part of the Sierra Club or any environmentalist
group but I recognize that humanity needs to support
a signficant amount of woodlands/forestry on earth
if we seek to continue our existance on earth. It is
simply a matter of the long term self-preservation of
humanity. I'll also support protecting watershed areas
because of the similar reasoning; I want to protect
the local water supply that the community draws from.
In the capacity that is afford to me, I've supported the
reduction of any risk of contamination to our local
watershed areas.
How much CO2 do lumber companies draw out of the atmosphere? I would
think more than if we left forests alone. Think about it, CO2 is being
used up by trees, and rather than the trees falling and rotting and
releasing much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere, they're being
sealed and used as lumber, the rest going into paper.

Also, don't you think that much of the imbalance in the atmosphere
will be absorbed by plantlife or some feedback mechanism we haven't
discovered yet?
Post by drydem
Urban planners are more often than not proponents
and advocates of development(those wealthy enough
to support large expensive projects) or those seeking
support (of large grants of monies) for development.
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
george conklin
2007-08-03 19:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
rotten
2007-08-03 19:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
george conklin
2007-08-03 21:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
My parents had a defunct farm in Windham, NY, and the tree coverage then
(1980s) was vastly more than in about 1900, when a reference picture had
been taken. Local people commented on how old pictures show the area
stripped clean...one part of a hill my father called "bald top" when I was
young. By the time he sold the place, it was all trees. Ditto for the
small farm I own today in North Carolina. It has gone back into heavy tree
cover. No, I'm not growing Xmas trees, but my neighbors are. And the place
in Durham was a tobacco farm too, and looks all green now from the air.
drydem
2007-08-05 19:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
My parents had a defunct farm in Windham, NY, and the tree coverage then
(1980s) was vastly more than in about 1900, when a reference picture had
been taken. Local people commented on how old pictures show the area
stripped clean...one part of a hill my father called "bald top" when I was
young. By the time he sold the place, it was all trees. Ditto for the
small farm I own today in North Carolina. It has gone back into heavy tree
cover. No, I'm not growing Xmas trees, but my neighbors are. And the place
in Durham was a tobacco farm too, and looks all green now from the air
Before the 1930's, the most farms in the USA normally focused
on maximizing the farming area. Back in the 1900s farms normally
did not consider the preservation of nearby woodlands. Clear cutting
woodlands is still being done in the USA but larger lumber firms
which now own vast amounts of private timberland avoid clear cutting.


Selectively harvesting timber in a fix region of woodland is the
only economically sustainable path. One of the reasons selective
harvesting occurs IMHO is that these large lumber companies are
not harvesting lumber from leased lands but rather they own the
woodland that they are harvesting from -- so there is a long term
interest to maintain a viable forest to harvest from. The leasing
of lands for harvesting timber creates a short term economic
focus and hence lumber companies are not interested in
maintaining a sustainable forest/woodland.


Modern farming operations in the USA have change since
the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Mature woodlands
create a natural wind breaker to lessen the effects of
wind erosion AND help maintain and support aquifers
(ground water sources) which are important for most
farming operations which use well water rather that
piped water from a reservior. One of the reasons
farms may not grow anything is because the can;
that is today there are federal subsidies and programs
that pay farmers not to farm on their land. Along
with crop rotation, farm subsidies that provide
farms income while a part of their land is allowed
to "rest" is suppose to prevent soil depletion and
soil erosion.
george conklin
2007-08-05 21:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
My parents had a defunct farm in Windham, NY, and the tree coverage then
(1980s) was vastly more than in about 1900, when a reference picture had
been taken. Local people commented on how old pictures show the area
stripped clean...one part of a hill my father called "bald top" when I was
young. By the time he sold the place, it was all trees. Ditto for the
small farm I own today in North Carolina. It has gone back into heavy tree
cover. No, I'm not growing Xmas trees, but my neighbors are. And the place
in Durham was a tobacco farm too, and looks all green now from the air
Before the 1930's, the most farms in the USA normally focused
on maximizing the farming area. Back in the 1900s farms normally
did not consider the preservation of nearby woodlands. Clear cutting
woodlands is still being done in the USA but larger lumber firms
which now own vast amounts of private timberland avoid clear cutting.
Selectively harvesting timber in a fix region of woodland is the
only economically sustainable path. One of the reasons selective
harvesting occurs IMHO is that these large lumber companies are
not harvesting lumber from leased lands but rather they own the
woodland that they are harvesting from -- so there is a long term
interest to maintain a viable forest to harvest from. The leasing
of lands for harvesting timber creates a short term economic
focus and hence lumber companies are not interested in
maintaining a sustainable forest/woodland.
Modern farming operations in the USA have change since
the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Mature woodlands
create a natural wind breaker to lessen the effects of
wind erosion AND help maintain and support aquifers
(ground water sources) which are important for most
farming operations which use well water rather that
piped water from a reservior. One of the reasons
farms may not grow anything is because the can;
that is today there are federal subsidies and programs
that pay farmers not to farm on their land. Along
with crop rotation, farm subsidies that provide
farms income while a part of their land is allowed
to "rest" is suppose to prevent soil depletion and
soil erosion.
More doubletalk. You've never seen the farms of Iowa, I guess, where
corn is growing as far as you can see, miles and miles and miles of it.
I guess you think it was that way 10,000 years ago.
RJ
2007-08-05 04:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
Good grief, it's not even close. In the winter, when the leaves are
off, you can see the remnant stone fences running everywhere through the
woods. In colonial days, those fences delineated pastures or crop lands
(though the main crop was always more rocks).
george conklin
2007-08-05 11:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJ
Post by rotten
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out into the exurbs
and suburbs.
Where if anything, they end up with more tree coverage than the marginal
farms they replaced ever had.
This is true, there was a good story about 15 years ago about how
there is now more treecover in heavily suburban Connecticut then there
was in the mid 18th century.
Good grief, it's not even close. In the winter, when the leaves are
off, you can see the remnant stone fences running everywhere through the
woods. In colonial days, those fences delineated pastures or crop lands
(though the main crop was always more rocks).
Well, you don't farm on land with trees, nor do you graze cattle. The Dutch
used to leve New York City to watch the native Americans burn vast areas of
the Hudson River valley so they could get some useful land. Burning it was
easier than clearing the trees.
drydem
2007-08-04 00:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by drydem
WRTM
I'm not so much a proponent of open spaces as I am of
protecting woodlands/forests. There is a solid scientific
ecological reason for preserving woodlands (over a
golf course or farmland which could also be classifed
as open spaces). Woodland/forests are part of the greater
ecological system that reduce carbon dioxide, create
breathable air, the reduce the regional surface temperature,
and work to maintain moisture/water in the ground
(which is important during times of drought). I'm not
part of the Sierra Club or any environmentalist
group but I recognize that humanity needs to support
a signficant amount of woodlands/forestry on earth
if we seek to continue our existance on earth. It is
simply a matter of the long term self-preservation of
humanity. I'll also support protecting watershed areas
because of the similar reasoning; I want to protect
the local water supply that the community draws from.
In the capacity that is afford to me, I've supported the
reduction of any risk of contamination to our local
watershed areas.
How much CO2 do lumber companies draw out of the atmosphere? I would
think more than if we left forests alone. Think about it, CO2 is being
used up by trees, and rather than the trees falling and rotting and
releasing much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere, they're being
sealed and used as lumber, the rest going into paper.
Forest will naturally decline and expand over time due
to forest fires. If lumber companies avoid clear cutting
and practice modern forest management techniques
- in theory a forest can exist forever and the sustained
amount of lumber can be harvested generating a regular
income.
Post by rotten
Also, don't you think that much of the imbalance in the atmosphere
will be absorbed by plantlife or some feedback mechanism we haven't
discovered yet?
No.

Global climate change has already started. My local
community is over 400 feet above sea level so its
not going to be directly effected. I expect that
the worst effects of this forecasted global
climate change to happen after I am long dead.
I do expect hotter summers and stronger weather
systems locally in the near term.

Last Feb/March we had an unusal ice storm in my
area that cause residential heating to go
unusually high - I'm not sure if this was just
a freak storm or whether it is a sign of things to come.
The ice storm system was prolong and none
of the houses in my community were meant
for that kind of extreme cold weather. I upgraded
the insulation in my home so my heating bill wasn't
as bad as some of my neighbors but I still saw
my heating need jump from 1000KWh to 2000KWh
last winter. From what I heard from some of
my neighbors I estimate some of them used about
4000KWh to 5000kwh during that same period.
Surprisingly we had very little snow last winter.
Post by rotten
Post by drydem
Urban planners are more often than not proponents
and advocates of development(those wealthy enough
to support large expensive projects) or those seeking
support (of large grants of monies) for development.
Eh? It's mostly the middle class who are moving out
into the exurbs and suburbs.
Those seeking support of large grants of monies for
development are not necessarily rich or middle class.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-04 01:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Forest will naturally decline and expand over time due
to forest fires. If lumber companies avoid clear cutting
and practice modern forest management techniques
- in theory a forest can exist forever and the sustained
amount of lumber can be harvested generating a regular
income.
Drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. I was a forestry major and seem to recall
that clear cutting was not as bad as people made it seem.
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
Also, don't you think that much of the imbalance in the atmosphere
will be absorbed by plantlife or some feedback mechanism we haven't
discovered yet?
No.
I think it will, otherwise we would have tipped the balance already. I don't
think global warming will be as bad as people say. In 100 years, one of us
will end up eating our words.
Post by drydem
Global climate change has already started. My local
community is over 400 feet above sea level so its
not going to be directly effected. I expect that
the worst effects of this forecasted global
climate change to happen after I am long dead.
I do expect hotter summers and stronger weather
systems locally in the near term.
I'd agree with that. I expect the affects to be mild though, more of a
nuisance than the calamity they're expecting. At least not for a long time.
Post by drydem
Last Feb/March we had an unusal ice storm in my
area that cause residential heating to go
unusually high - I'm not sure if this was just
a freak storm or whether it is a sign of things to come.
The ice storm system was prolong and none
of the houses in my community were meant
for that kind of extreme cold weather. I upgraded
the insulation in my home so my heating bill wasn't
as bad as some of my neighbors but I still saw
my heating need jump from 1000KWh to 2000KWh
last winter. From what I heard from some of
my neighbors I estimate some of them used about
4000KWh to 5000kwh during that same period.
Surprisingly we had very little snow last winter.
Lucky.
Post by drydem
Those seeking support of large grants of monies for
development are not necessarily rich or middle class.
I don't think we should constrict growth, we shouldn't subsidize it either.
drydem
2007-08-05 13:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by drydem
Forest will naturally decline and expand over time due
to forest fires. If lumber companies avoid clear cutting
and practice modern forest management techniques
- in theory a forest can exist forever and the sustained
amount of lumber can be harvested generating a regular
income.
Drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. I was a forestry major and seem to recall
that clear cutting was not as bad as people made it seem.
Did bad grades force you to drop out?
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by drydem
Post by rotten
Also, don't you think that much of the imbalance in the atmosphere
will be absorbed by plantlife or some feedback mechanism we haven't
discovered yet?
No.
I think it will, otherwise we would have tipped the balance already. I don't
think global warming will be as bad as people say. In 100 years, one of us
will end up eating our words.
Climate change occurs slowly over several decades if not centuries.
Because the amount of energy need to change the earth's climate
is so enormous it takes along time for the earth's climate to change
in either direction. However, once a planetary climate direction
is set it is very difficult to impossible to change the direction.
Global Warming Theory also indicates there is a risk that man
could permanently change earth's present climate system
inwhich the worst case scenario would be a Venus-like a planetary
atmospheric system.
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by drydem
Global climate change has already started. My local
community is over 400 feet above sea level so its
not going to be directly effected. I expect that
the worst effects of this forecasted global
climate change to happen after I am long dead.
I do expect hotter summers and stronger weather
systems locally in the near term.
I'd agree with that. I expect the affects to be mild though, more of a
nuisance than the calamity they're expecting. At least not for a long time.
Post by drydem
Last Feb/March we had an unusal ice storm in my
area that cause residential heating to go
unusually high - I'm not sure if this was just
a freak storm or whether it is a sign of things to come.
The ice storm system was prolong and none
of the houses in my community were meant
for that kind of extreme cold weather. I upgraded
the insulation in my home so my heating bill wasn't
as bad as some of my neighbors but I still saw
my heating need jump from 1000KWh to 2000KWh
last winter. From what I heard from some of
my neighbors I estimate some of them used about
4000KWh to 5000kwh during that same period.
Surprisingly we had very little snow last winter.
Lucky.
Post by drydem
Those seeking support of large grants of monies for
development are not necessarily rich or middle class.
I don't think we should constrict growth, we shouldn't subsidize it either.
Joe the Aroma
2007-08-05 19:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by Joe the Aroma
Drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. I was a forestry major and seem to recall
that clear cutting was not as bad as people made it seem.
Did bad grades force you to drop out?
My, aren't we nasty?
Post by drydem
Post by Joe the Aroma
I think it will, otherwise we would have tipped the balance already. I don't
think global warming will be as bad as people say. In 100 years, one of us
will end up eating our words.
Climate change occurs slowly over several decades if not centuries.
Because the amount of energy need to change the earth's climate
is so enormous it takes along time for the earth's climate to change
in either direction. However, once a planetary climate direction
is set it is very difficult to impossible to change the direction.
Global Warming Theory also indicates there is a risk that man
could permanently change earth's present climate system
inwhich the worst case scenario would be a Venus-like a planetary
atmospheric system.
I highly doubt that.
george conklin
2007-08-05 21:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by Joe the Aroma
Post by drydem
Forest will naturally decline and expand over time due
to forest fires. If lumber companies avoid clear cutting
and practice modern forest management techniques
- in theory a forest can exist forever and the sustained
amount of lumber can be harvested generating a regular
income.
Drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. I was a forestry major and seem to recall
that clear cutting was not as bad as people made it seem.
Did bad grades force you to drop out?
Posted by a man who thinks that meat grows in supermarkets.
george conklin
2007-08-04 11:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Global climate change has already started.
Global climate changed never stopped. It has been, overall, warming for
the last 10,000 years, Al Gore notwithstanding.
drydem
2007-08-05 13:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Global climate change has already started.
Global climate changed never stopped. It has been, overall, warming for
the last 10,000 years, Al Gore notwithstanding.
The *global climate change* that is the focus of
the global warming theory shows an unprecedent
and unusually exponential increase in the
amounts of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to the earth's
atmosphere over the last 300 years. The Al
Gore's presentation in the film "An Inconvenient
Truth" makes this clear.
george conklin
2007-08-05 21:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by george conklin
Post by drydem
Global climate change has already started.
Global climate changed never stopped. It has been, overall, warming for
the last 10,000 years, Al Gore notwithstanding.
The *global climate change* that is the focus of
the global warming theory shows an unprecedent
and unusually exponential increase in the
amounts of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to the earth's
atmosphere over the last 300 years. The Al
Gore's presentation in the film "An Inconvenient
Truth" makes this clear.
The earth has been warming for 10,000 years, CO2 notwithstanding.
o***@hotmail.com
2007-08-01 22:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi.
As if the subway doesn't have problems like the 60 percent of riders
who say they have been sexually harassed while commuting.
george conklin
2007-08-02 13:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by drydem
The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi.
As if the subway doesn't have problems like the 60 percent of riders
who say they have been sexually harassed while commuting.
Well, we would not want the mayor to have to worry about groping, now would
we?
Sancho Panza
2007-08-02 16:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by drydem
The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi.
As if the subway doesn't have problems like the 60 percent of riders
who say they have been sexually harassed while commuting.
Well, we would not want the mayor to have to worry about groping, now
would we?
Based on past court cases (and current news articles), he is more likely to
be the groper than the gropee.
george conklin
2007-08-02 17:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by george conklin
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by drydem
The mayor reportedly
avoids walking to the local subway because he doesn't want
to be followed by the news media and the paparazzi.
As if the subway doesn't have problems like the 60 percent of riders
who say they have been sexually harassed while commuting.
Well, we would not want the mayor to have to worry about groping, now
would we?
Based on past court cases (and current news articles), he is more likely
to be the groper than the gropee.
Well then, he needs a Suburban to prevent him from deviance and sin.
Loading...