whispering really likes Krugman. She thinks he is very sexy.

LEAVE THEM ALONE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

GCYL. you forgot the big one. whispering is a bigot. Just check out any archive where the catholic church is a topic to see why.

Ted - 10 % of this country support the other 90% with their taxes. That is outrageous.

Interesting that you'd bring up AGW this week Heidi, not just because of the weather, but because of two new peered reviewed papers and the voyager spacecraft all are pointing to cosmic rays being the culprit for climate change. Additionally CO2 was determined to less of an issue as a large percentage of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and plants. This means that the IPCC calculations are totally incorrect because they use a much higher percentage of CO2 staying in the atmosphere in their calculations. AGW is done. All of you blindly supporting it are going to have to look in the mirror and realize that you are nothing but lemmings. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/50_years_of_cooling_predicted#65269 http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/tornado.php http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/floodseuro.php

2010 is a short time away. I think you'll find that listening to constituents is the wise thing to do.

You enjoy that program JawhawkinMo, but have a backup, because it will be insolvent in about 5 years. ggbridge, no Repbulicans were were allowed in the little rooms with Democratic leaders to create the bill. This bill is a bad choice, why should anyone support something that will bankrupt the country sooner. There are numerous other ways that healthcare reform could have been done; and cheaper. The Dems want a government controlled system. Be careful what you wish for. Wildman, the prescription plan was a bad bill also. Why is now the mantra of the liberals that "Since the Republicans spent x, we can spend 10 times x". Fiscal conservatives were against both. This country goes bankrupt in about 7 years now. You cannot simply keep spending money that doesn't exist.

KC Educator needs a Evelyn Woodhead course.

Jim, you are just a fool. the bill is delayed 4 years from implementation so that the government can collect 4 years of raised taxes to afford it. You believe whatever you want, (and you will), but your guys are going down big time the next 2 elections. You better contact them to put together some additional 2500 page monstrosities that will destroy the country and eventually your own party. You are pissing in the drinking water.

Jim - My original point was right on. I'll be alot more succinct than you. You can try to force things to happen, but that it not going to make them happen, no matter what you say. There is this little thing called the market and it is not controlled they way you want it. You provide all the legislation you want to, but at the end of the day if you don't have the doctors to support the number of people in the system and if you give them no incentive to work harder, care will be rationed. Anything you say above and beyond that is complete tripe and you know it. This does not create any death panels but effectively does the same thing. If there is not enough care to go around, you don't get to have mammograms in your 40s. It's really simple. Additionally, if the government gets involved in health care, it will cause every health insurance company to go out of business because the government doesn't have to make a profit. We know that you are completely partisan, but that doesn't mean you have to be ignorant either. Try to put 2 and 2 together. When the government gets involved, we all lose. How can people who claim that they want civil liberties be so quick to give it up to a government body?

Boss - what you seem unable to do is to reason. Your diatribe shows that. Does a one payer health system create a government run system. Not directly (which is all that you seem to care about) but indirectly. It has to occur based upon competition in the market. Are there such things as death panels, no they are not named that but the rationing of health care is the same thing. You are going to add 40 million people to the system and limit doctor's rates that they can charge and not increase the number of doctors. How can anyone in their right mind assume that care will not have to be rationed? We've seen this before. It is the law of unintended consequences. The government steps in and has banks force home loans to people who really shouldn't get loans, guess what happens? Have you tried to buy a used care lately? Guess what, cash for clunkers has decimated any good deals an individual can get for a used car that is about 8 years old. But that is what happens when bureaucrats try to run things that they don't have a clue about. The government did a great job with Katrina. They have messed up Social Security and Medicare. Why on earth would anyone assume that they can run health care. They haven't succeeded running anything except perhaps the military (but at great cost). Why are you so easily persuaded to give them free reigns to run something else?

"However, it doesn't (shouldn't) take a non-partisan person to see that the right wingers (as they always have done) play more on the fears" Conjecture and opinion driven by partisan emotion. A whole lot of people see it the exact opposite.

Cool - Boss knows how to make use of quotes. Too bad he can't apply them properly.

The Midwest Voices board will not let anyone with opposing viewpoints post. Sounds like Socialism.

The Midwest Voices board will not let anyone with opposing viewpoints post. Sounds like Socialism.

The Midwest Voices board will not let anyone with opposing viewpoints post. Sounds like Socialism.

The Midwest Voices board will not let anyone with opposing viewpoints post. Sounds like Socialism.

Mr Smith Goes to Washington was on the other night. It sure ties into what is occurring in Washington. I'd recommend that KansasDog watch it. Additionally, who cares about filibustering to stop crappy laws. I wish it would occur now.

No the question is hajkar, what is up with your cronies.

The IPCC is hardly an independent body, they are a UN organization that has it's mission statement "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change". That makes it a supposedly scientific body, but with it's mind made up. As far as the articles, I have them bookmarked along with about 50 other links, so will put when I have time. Regarding your 2004 article, you might want to find something a bit more recent. Also, just as noted in the Star, liberal media types are not reporting on AGW skeptism, they are in bed with them. So using that fact against them is akin to the ClimateGate scientists arguing that skeptical scientists can't get research when they in fact have shut down the ability of those same scientists to write papers to get the research. What that smacks of brought on the Scopes Monkey Trial.

(part 2) Please note additionally that the leading AGW proponents such as AG and UN IPCC Chair Pachauri stand to make millions off of AGW. Especially for Pachauri, this is a major conflict of interest. Two final points. I have big issues with 1. The news media for not reporting ClimateGate and for so easily trying to sweep it under the rug. It obviously doesn't fit their agenda and point to that ole liberal bias argument that they try to argue out of. 2. If you want to blame someone on this, blame the scientists. To this point they have not proven anything. The burden of proof rests on them. However, there is never going to be a true understanding of whether this is true or not as long as the IPCC exists. AT this point, i would hope that some independent scientific board would be put together that would take a hard look at all of this and advise what is really occuring. I think that is only logical. It would seem to me that whether you believe in AGW or you don't that you would want to know the truth before changing the entire economic system on the planet.

Actually Bartchik - I think the ClimateGate emails and some articles that have just been published about scientists who have disagreed do show that these scientists have colluded to shut down opposing views. Quotes are coming out that even other scientists at the CRU think that the this has become political, and that the science is tainted. You have to be aware that science builds upon itself. The foundation of Global Warming is Mann's interpretation of tree ring data from Siberia. This has already been disproved by McIntyre because it does not reflect the little ice age and the midevil warming period. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html If in fact this graph has been tainted (as it appears it has) everything else is suspect as well. Here is info on funding http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ Is the science real? Sounds pretty fishy. If it is real, the evidence should stand by itself. Additionally, if you do some research into some peer reviewed papers published in the last year you will find two very interesting papers. 1. With the cooling trend that has taken place over the last 10 years, it is starting to be statistically impossible for AGW to be happening because CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere in record numbers. The paper went on to say that AGW had only a stastically probability of under 20% with the current cooling and that by extending it for 5 more years gives it a 1 % probability. 2. Scientists have been basing there calculations using an infinite atmosphere. A more exact measure of suspected CO2 influence into a finite atmosphere modelling earth would reach a limit. Any heating from CO2 would effectively stop at a certain level.

Bartchik. The earth has been on a warming trend. People are not denying Global warming exists, however what is disputed is AGW or theory that man contributes to global warming. Doe man contribute to global warming, probably. The big issue is the extent as which a trace gas in the atmosphere CO2 contributes to AGW. The big issue with this is that it has become politicized. Once that occurred,real science stopped working. Opposing scientists and views have been shut down. Nowadays, only scientists that support AGW are getting research money. Science is never settled because a group that has, what they think, is the upper hand at the time. Please do some research and you will find the following: The IPCC process for review of AGW is flawed. Actually only about 52 scientists with very close links provide the summaries for the data. Other scientists with opposing views that have peer reviewed the studies say that they did agree with the conclusions

whispering, you wouldn't understand the problem if it fell from the sky into your lap and wiggled. Goldman Sachs is going to make money one way or another. Anything they can make a dollar on, they are going to. The problem is that your socialist buddies are giving them the ability to make their money. Your buddies, including the president you voted for, are more interested in fighting the imaginary ManBearPig than fixing our economy.

no whispering, it is about the socialism that you love.