Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

Wrong.Biofuels are not zero-carbon because of the greenhouse gases emitted in their manufacture. Manufacturing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer requires 33,500 cubic feet of natural gas.Fertilizers used in agriculture also emit a particularly potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. In addition, air emissions from fertilizer manufacturing facilities typically consist of greenhouse gases (typically carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide), other gaseous inorganic compounds, and particulate emissions.A recent report by chemist Paul Crutzen suggested most biofuels contributed more to climate change than fossil fuels as a result of fertilizer use alone.Others have suggested that the net carbon benefit of biofuels is so slight that it's negligible.No one has suggested that the net carbon benefit of biofuels is significant.

First. The manufacturing process of fertilizers, pesticides, plastics and solvents would have to be modified.Second. Nearly all pesticides and plastics and some solvents use petroleum products as the raw material for their production.Third. Electricity comes from fossil fuels, Tesla.

Nope. Wrong again. U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis None of which are sufficient.
None of which are economically viable.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.You need to back up that bare assertion.

First. I would like to you support your assertion that Ike was the ONLY president who was baptized/confirmed/communicant. This is VERY unlikely.Second. Mentioning god in a letter qualifies as "more religious"? If that's the case, then EVERY President is guilty.Third. Adding "under God" in an era of Mccarthyism hardly qualifies as a religious move by Ike. Both Blair and Bush justified the Iraq invasion in the name of god. CNN.com - Blair: God will judge Iraq war - Mar 4, 2006 You've just nullified the entire argument for any President.

Wrong. Kennedy.If I were to research the matter, I suspect I could find any number of examples. But since you were the one who brought it up, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders.So. Cites please. Perhaps you'd like to share. Not good enough for you, hm?How's this? Docan, Tony., Freitas, Lisa. and Holtzman, Clay. George W. Bush's 'National Day of Prayer and Remembrance' Speech: A Cluster Analysis of Bush's Rhetorical Argument for Revenge Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27, 2003 Online <.PDF>. 2006-10-05 Page not found | All Academic, Inc.If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to read the paper and cite examples of "god's justification of specific actions". Does God support democracy? The president's theological justification for war in Iraq demands scrutiny
National Catholic Reporter, Feb 4, 2005 by Patrick Kelly
http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m1141/is_14_41/ai_n9772186There's plenty more where those 2 came from. But I think you get the idea.

Briefing Room - The White HouseThe point of the paper is GWB's use of this National Day of Prayer & Remembrance that he declared (Truman's = first Thursday in May) to support his idea that god is on his side in the Iraq conflict. To be technical, not quite. http://www.ndptf.org/schools/Index.cfm?Entity=8&Departmen...

Oh. Obvious. Thank you for your concern!I have a very low BP, a very low heart rate and a low body temp. In fact, by the time I reach 98.6, I have a raging fever.Thank you again for your heartfelt concern! Oh dear. I see. You're on of those.

Army Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin made headlines in 2003 when he said he believed America was engaged in a holy war as a "Christian nation" battling Satan. Adversaries can be defeated, he said, "only if we come against them in the name of Jesus." Boykin was Bush's deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.The White House, in May 2007, called a meeting -- the president invited dominionist James Dobson and 12 or 13 other end time ministers for a special meeting. They discussed the "disturbing threats Iraq, Iran and international terrorism posed to US, Israel and other democracies around the world".Joel Rosenberg is an end-time "prophecy expert" who makes frequent visits to the White House to help them "understand what will happen next in the Middle East." In a radio interview with James Dobson, Rosenberg informed listeners that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the latest in a long line of end-time anti-Christ candidates that recently included Saddam Hussein -- is "telling people inside Iran that he believes that the end of the world is just two or three years away." Dobson, referring to Ahmadinejad, said: "We didn't take Hitler very seriously either. I just see the parallel. The president, it seems to me, does understand this.""I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job," the president said in 2004.Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey told the BBC World Service in 2002 that he believed the president subscribed to end-time prophecies when "the whole world goes through a difficult time during those days of Tribulation."Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor of the Foreign Policy in Focus project, observes that "Iraq has become the new Babylon" for Bush. In biblical Revelation, Babylon is the "great whore" representing human sin and corruption that will be destroyed to allow Jerusalem's rise and Jesus's return.This spring, AIPAC, with the help of its end-time supporters, succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get Congressional approval before using military force against Iran.A number of members of Congress, recent and current, have been explicit about their end-time views. High-profile end-time politicians include: former House Majority Leader Tom Delay; former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey; former Senate Majority leader Bill Frist; current Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell; former House Speaker Dennis Hastert; Senator Sam Brownback.When Tom Delay was asked by an end timer, "How much of an inspiration is the Second Coming in your support for Israel?", he answered, "Obviously, it's what I live for. Really. I hope it comes tomorrow."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-IgMost info in this post from here:Page not found - Truthout

This president has circumvented Congress on a number of issues, including the invasion of Iraq. Congress did not declare war with Iraq. In addition, this president has abused presidential power on a number of occasions. Bush has argued that "as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime." Any law. With no oversight. Period.Bush has also expanded the powers of the Executive Branch to an alarming degree, usurping the powers of the Legislative Branch.Like Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."And -- since this President holds End Times beliefs, consults End Times prophets, relies on End Times advisors -- there is ample reason to be concerned.

Only the President can authorize a nuclear missile launch. http://findarticles.com/...cles/mi_m1571/is_7_17/ai_72328612The launch happens within minutes.You wanna point out where in that scenario someone might intervene? Aside from wholesale mutiny, I mean.

Wrong. The President, alone, makes the decision. Period. End of sentence.

To repeat: the balance of power HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A NUCLEAR LAUNCH.The President has exclusive authority.If you think otherwise, prove it.ABE:In the past, command and control of nuclear weapons was in the hands of dozens of people.In the 1950s, Ike predelegated launch authority to top military commanders.The situation remained unchanged until the 1980s.Which means: for over 30 years, dozens of people had the ability to initiate worldwide thermonuclear war. 19980319Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

DEFCON status has nothing to do with the decision to launch.And the command and control procedures are classified you ninny.All we know, and all we will know, is that the President has SOLE COMMAND.

Your belief, of lack thereof, have no bearing on the truth of the matter at hand.I suggest you read the link I provided: ABE: http://www.fas.org/...guide/usa/doctrine/dod/dodd-3150_6.htmEdited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.