"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A68750.60B48FF2@***.net...
> May if you let your little imagination wonder away from the equator
> that determine the north and southern hemispheres you will see as any
> eliminatory student would know that hurricanes go west, and do not cross
> the equator, same in the southern hemisphere except thier Typhoons go
> east and of course stay in their own hemisphere. So it would be just
> common sense of which you have none, that their atmosphere would stay in
> their own hemispheres:

Bill, you're starting to look foolish (starting?)... the
atmosphere mixes, your link never denied that, it even
says that the atmosphere is remarkably consistant:

http://college.hmco.com/physicalscie...udygoals/ch19/

"Our atmosphere is quite complex, yet its composition remains surprisingly
consistent. By volume, 99% is made up of only two common gases, nitrogen
(78%) and oxygen (21%). The remaining 1% is primarily argon and carbon
dioxide, together with very small traces of several other gases. "

We all know that wind can blow across the Equator...
at least, most of us know this. Do you deny this?
How about the solar radiation, moving from North
to South each year due to the seasons? This creates
high/low pressure zones above and below the
geographic Equator... air is exchanged.

You can't find a cite that tells me air is not
exchanged between hemispheres... but you
are welcome to try... : )
__
Steve
..

__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A68AD1.C39A033E@***.net...
> Kerry lost Ohio by three thousand votes, it doesn't take a
> mathematician to figure out that is a direct result of thirty years Roe
> vs Wade. Moral Republicans keeping and taking responsibility their
> mistakes.

That's a huge margin! You're right, it was a complete
mandate from the American populace!

How come abortion-on-demand is still legal? W
is well into his second term... hell, we don't even
have prayer in school!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A68AD1.C39A033E@***.net...
> Kerry lost Ohio by three thousand votes, it doesn't take a
> mathematician to figure out that is a direct result of thirty years Roe
> vs Wade. Moral Republicans keeping and taking responsibility their
> mistakes.

That's a huge margin! You're right, it was a complete
mandate from the American populace!

How come abortion-on-demand is still legal? W
is well into his second term... hell, we don't even
have prayer in school!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A68AD1.C39A033E@***.net...
> Kerry lost Ohio by three thousand votes, it doesn't take a
> mathematician to figure out that is a direct result of thirty years Roe
> vs Wade. Moral Republicans keeping and taking responsibility their
> mistakes.

That's a huge margin! You're right, it was a complete
mandate from the American populace!

How come abortion-on-demand is still legal? W
is well into his second term... hell, we don't even
have prayer in school!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A68AD1.C39A033E@***.net...
> Kerry lost Ohio by three thousand votes, it doesn't take a
> mathematician to figure out that is a direct result of thirty years Roe
> vs Wade. Moral Republicans keeping and taking responsibility their
> mistakes.

That's a huge margin! You're right, it was a complete
mandate from the American populace!

How come abortion-on-demand is still legal? W
is well into his second term... hell, we don't even
have prayer in school!
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11ad5jmeif21ba0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ybvpe.2232$%j7.1701@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...
> > What refrigerant is in your late-model car?
>
> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)

Not W!

> > Oh, if you're Libertarian... get off my damn
> > roads!
>
> ?

I paid for those roads... you don't want to
pay for them, then don't use them!

> > Don't you think we could have made more
> > points that way by invading Sudan?
>
> ...so take care of sudan next.

No... Saudi Arabia's next!

>> debacle? i love how you liberals (who claim to stand for human rights)
>> overlook that iraq is free from tyranny. iraqi women are now allowed to
GO
>> TO SCHOOL, to hold jobs, to live as equal citizens. no stephen, id say
iraq
>> has been an overwhelming success to date. that could change tomorrow,
but
>> as it is right now with bush leading the way iraq is a success.


> > That's why we went to Iraq? To free
> > their women?
>
> its certainly an added benefit, and one that you liberals always fail to
> mention or recognize. had it been clinton or kerry who invaded iraq under
> the same circumstances you would have celebrated the accomplishment.

An added benefit? For thousands dead, hundreds of
billions spent? It boggles the frickin' mind! Women
had it better under Saddam than they do now under
most other Arab countries... you NeoCons seem to
forget that W trashed one of the only secular governments
in the region. Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan
with Iraq.... you certainly wouldn't be alone, W himself
got pretty confused about that.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/sitein...m/altview.html

<>
It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education,
including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More
important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was e
nded by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.
I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from
downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was
nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the
campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that
was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and
almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.
</>

As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
Iraqi women'... they were free before. Your ignorance
speaks volumes... shelves of volumes. Perhaps if
you'd educate yourself more, you'd get a different
perspective.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11ad5jmeif21ba0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ybvpe.2232$%j7.1701@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...
> > What refrigerant is in your late-model car?
>
> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)

Not W!

> > Oh, if you're Libertarian... get off my damn
> > roads!
>
> ?

I paid for those roads... you don't want to
pay for them, then don't use them!

> > Don't you think we could have made more
> > points that way by invading Sudan?
>
> ...so take care of sudan next.

No... Saudi Arabia's next!

>> debacle? i love how you liberals (who claim to stand for human rights)
>> overlook that iraq is free from tyranny. iraqi women are now allowed to
GO
>> TO SCHOOL, to hold jobs, to live as equal citizens. no stephen, id say
iraq
>> has been an overwhelming success to date. that could change tomorrow,
but
>> as it is right now with bush leading the way iraq is a success.


> > That's why we went to Iraq? To free
> > their women?
>
> its certainly an added benefit, and one that you liberals always fail to
> mention or recognize. had it been clinton or kerry who invaded iraq under
> the same circumstances you would have celebrated the accomplishment.

An added benefit? For thousands dead, hundreds of
billions spent? It boggles the frickin' mind! Women
had it better under Saddam than they do now under
most other Arab countries... you NeoCons seem to
forget that W trashed one of the only secular governments
in the region. Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan
with Iraq.... you certainly wouldn't be alone, W himself
got pretty confused about that.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/sitein...m/altview.html

<>
It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education,
including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More
important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was e
nded by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.
I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from
downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was
nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the
campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that
was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and
almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.
</>

As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
Iraqi women'... they were free before. Your ignorance
speaks volumes... shelves of volumes. Perhaps if
you'd educate yourself more, you'd get a different
perspective.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11ad5jmeif21ba0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ybvpe.2232$%j7.1701@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...
> > What refrigerant is in your late-model car?
>
> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)

Not W!

> > Oh, if you're Libertarian... get off my damn
> > roads!
>
> ?

I paid for those roads... you don't want to
pay for them, then don't use them!

> > Don't you think we could have made more
> > points that way by invading Sudan?
>
> ...so take care of sudan next.

No... Saudi Arabia's next!

>> debacle? i love how you liberals (who claim to stand for human rights)
>> overlook that iraq is free from tyranny. iraqi women are now allowed to
GO
>> TO SCHOOL, to hold jobs, to live as equal citizens. no stephen, id say
iraq
>> has been an overwhelming success to date. that could change tomorrow,
but
>> as it is right now with bush leading the way iraq is a success.


> > That's why we went to Iraq? To free
> > their women?
>
> its certainly an added benefit, and one that you liberals always fail to
> mention or recognize. had it been clinton or kerry who invaded iraq under
> the same circumstances you would have celebrated the accomplishment.

An added benefit? For thousands dead, hundreds of
billions spent? It boggles the frickin' mind! Women
had it better under Saddam than they do now under
most other Arab countries... you NeoCons seem to
forget that W trashed one of the only secular governments
in the region. Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan
with Iraq.... you certainly wouldn't be alone, W himself
got pretty confused about that.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/sitein...m/altview.html

<>
It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education,
including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More
important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was e
nded by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.
I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from
downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was
nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the
campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that
was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and
almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.
</>

As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
Iraqi women'... they were free before. Your ignorance
speaks volumes... shelves of volumes. Perhaps if
you'd educate yourself more, you'd get a different
perspective.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11ad5jmeif21ba0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ybvpe.2232$%j7.1701@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...
> > What refrigerant is in your late-model car?
>
> .....who do you call "mr president"? :-)

Not W!

> > Oh, if you're Libertarian... get off my damn
> > roads!
>
> ?

I paid for those roads... you don't want to
pay for them, then don't use them!

> > Don't you think we could have made more
> > points that way by invading Sudan?
>
> ...so take care of sudan next.

No... Saudi Arabia's next!

>> debacle? i love how you liberals (who claim to stand for human rights)
>> overlook that iraq is free from tyranny. iraqi women are now allowed to
GO
>> TO SCHOOL, to hold jobs, to live as equal citizens. no stephen, id say
iraq
>> has been an overwhelming success to date. that could change tomorrow,
but
>> as it is right now with bush leading the way iraq is a success.


> > That's why we went to Iraq? To free
> > their women?
>
> its certainly an added benefit, and one that you liberals always fail to
> mention or recognize. had it been clinton or kerry who invaded iraq under
> the same circumstances you would have celebrated the accomplishment.

An added benefit? For thousands dead, hundreds of
billions spent? It boggles the frickin' mind! Women
had it better under Saddam than they do now under
most other Arab countries... you NeoCons seem to
forget that W trashed one of the only secular governments
in the region. Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan
with Iraq.... you certainly wouldn't be alone, W himself
got pretty confused about that.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/sitein...m/altview.html

<>
It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education,
including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More
important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was e
nded by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.
I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from
downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was
nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the
campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that
was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and
almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.
</>

As you can see, Nate.... there was no 'liberation of
Iraqi women'... they were free before. Your ignorance
speaks volumes... shelves of volumes. Perhaps if
you'd educate yourself more, you'd get a different
perspective.
__
Steve
..

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:romdnQhg2f-1ejvfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:6phpe.630$%j7.347@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:ouednXGiVs8SzDjfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> >> Evidence exists that the polar vortex is a natural phenomenon and
existed
> >> before cfc's were widely used. Has to do with the large temperature
> >> variation between the Antarctic continent and the surrounding
ocean...the
> >> land mass is supercooled during the Antarctic winter, and the increased
> >> temperature varaiation causes massive upper-level winds that disperse
the
> >> atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic.
> >
> > Exactly... the CFC's didn't cause the vortex, but the vortex
> > exacerbates the CFC problem. Glad to see you're finally
> > coming around... :)

> So you're admitting that cfc's don't cause the ozone hole. Thank you.
>

Matt, come back when you learn how to read. Of course,
CFC's don't cause the ozone hole... *God* caused the
ozone hole, to pay us back for Mormonism and 'Friends'.
__
Steve
..