|
Richard,
You gotta stop watching so many Michael Moore flix Robin Socemdog |
|
"Michael Daly" ) writes: On 7-Nov-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote: ... Canadian living in the USA where he has a higher income and lower taxes making paddling a more affordable passtime. :) And yet the Canadian dollar, currently at US$0.83 is at purchasing parity with the US$. In other words, for US$0.83, you can buy the same goods and services in Canada as you can with US$1.00 in the US. So much for your fantasies. Won't argue with that point. However, it's not relevant to what I posted. I noted that in the USA a Canaidan can get a higher income and lower taxes leaving him or her with more dollars of disposable income. If US dollars buy the same as Canadian dollars as you claim, you're better off with more of either. Paddling equipment has long been cheaper in Canada than in the US as long as you buy Canadian products. Point taken. For those of us who build our own boats I don't think that's true as there seems to be more variety of materials at lower cost in the USA. Must be the higher cost labour component in the USA that lifts the finished product price. Last year someone noted you can buy a Honda outboard motor in Vancouver 20% cheaper than in Seattle. People in the USA do pay more to protect domestic industry. On the whole I think techies are better off financially in the USA than Canada. Under a Republican administration it can only get better. Although if the lefites are right (excuse pun) paddlers might have to drive a bit further to find "wilderness". :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
|
|
|
Ok - ya got me on the water part. I have been trying to figure out a way to
come up that way and try some of it out. No time to do it though - maybe when I retire, which seems very far away. "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 9-Nov-2004, (William R. Watt) wrote: I noted that in the USA a Canaidan can get a higher income and lower taxes leaving him or her with more dollars of disposable income. This is often more a myth than a reality. I've looked a jobs in the US and found that I can make more in Toronto ON than in most places in the US. The places in the States where salaries are higher have outrageous real estate costs. After paying for a place to live and for medical insurance and expenses and all those other things we in Canada take for granted, you're just as well off staying home. Not true for some professions, but true for many. Besides, Canadians have more clean water to paddle in. Mike |
On 11-Nov-2004, Dan Valleskey valleskey at comcast dot net wrote:
I think I will have to stay home for the next four years. Better you should act. Don't let the religious right corrupt your long-defended Constitution. Never allow the government to be a corrupt user of its power - at home or internationally. The use of strawman enemies by politicians and rulers is well documented. Nothing like an enemy conspiracy to unite the stupid lemmings around those leaders. The US governments and media have been portraying Arabs and Islamists in bad light for decades. They've now replaced the communists as the rallying cry. Not justified. Mike |
On 10-Nov-2004, "Michael Daly" wrote:
...did in the Baltics? Oops - make that the Balkans. Sorry - typing to fast. Mike |
Felsenmeer wrote:
Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks like the country in general has swung even further to the right. Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and always have been. Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that! It's one thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the electorate don't care. Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. For example, we desperately need to reinstate the gas-guzzler tax or something similar, but to do so now would drive the economy back into recession. Whether you believe it or not, there is nothing that prevents one from being both conservative and pro-environment. |
Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
pchuck (socemdog) typed: Richard, You gotta stop watching so many Michael Moore flix Robin Socemdog Sorry, Robin; I didn't see it. I just read, watch the news, and think for myself. I don' need no steenkin' Michael Moore to tell me how to think! (^BD I hope we all live long enuff to read the historians' perspectives on this asshole's Administration, 20 or 30 years from now. Yule see. Ahhh, yes, there's nothing like hatred and vitriol to warm the cockles of one's heart. And you people actually wonder why your guy lost? If nothing else, this thread has been good for a laugh. |
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message ... Felsenmeer wrote: Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks like the country in general has swung even further to the right. Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and always have been. I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people. Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that! Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be accessing health care! Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. That perspective is sad indeed. |
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:25:13 GMT, "Michael Daly" wrote: Compare the number of Americans killed by terrorists on US soil in the last (choose time period) years to the number of Americans murdered by Americans on US soil in the same period. Are you sure that terrorists are such a big problem? You'd save a lot more American lives by spending those $billions at home than by waging illegal wars abroad. Mike Look at the number of Americans who kill themselves each year via cigarettes- about 440,000, last I heard. I am not hearing about any air strikes against the R.J. Reynolds headquarters. Or the number who die each year of the flu- about 36,000, I believe, yet my 86-year-old mother cannot get a flu shot. Who is protecting who here? 9/11 was surely a tragedy, but it shouldn't divert us from some clear-headed risk assessment. Pete |
Keenan Wellar wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message ... Felsenmeer wrote: Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks like the country in general has swung even further to the right. Liberals will never get it. Contrary to their deluded thinking, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are conservative and always have been. I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people. True. However, I think that's controllable. Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that! Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be accessing health care! There's a big difference between civil rights and the socialist agenda being pushed by the left. As for health care, it's long past time that people realize that health care is not a "right", never has been one and shouldn't be one. Despite the flaws in our system, we still have the best health care in the world, as evidenced by the number of people who still flock here from other countries. If you want to see what a disaster socialized medicine would be, all you have to do is look to the north. Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. That perspective is sad indeed. What can I say, that's the reality of the situation. No one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. That's one reason that Ralph Nader or the Green Party will never become a substantial force in American politics; their radical agenda would devastate the economy, assuming they could get any of it through Congress. |
Brian Nystrom wrote in message ...
Oci-One Kanubi wrote: pchuck (socemdog) typed: Richard, You gotta stop watching so many Michael Moore flix Robin Socemdog Sorry, Robin; I didn't see it. I just read, watch the news, and think for myself. I don' need no steenkin' Michael Moore to tell me how to think! (^BD I hope we all live long enuff to read the historians' perspectives on this asshole's Administration, 20 or 30 years from now. Yule see. Ahhh, yes, there's nothing like hatred and vitriol to warm the cockles of one's heart. And you people actually wonder why your guy lost? If nothing else, this thread has been good for a laugh. Let them keep watching MM, irrelevance is fitting, they wear it so well!! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
I
Wait, isn't that just in the Netherlands? Did a train blow up in Spain? Aren't the French clamping down of Islamic Schools, which I believe your country is going to do also? Haven't there been several terrorist plans broken up by British Intellegence services? Are all these actions really unneeded or do most Europeans feel that immigrants from the Islamic world pose a threat to Western European Civilization? The French are trying to keep church and state apart and so want no religious symbols in Schools which are state run. The USA is having difficulty keeping church and state apart despite its constitution I would argue SYOTR Larry C. -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
in article .net, Rick at
wrote on 11/13/04 6:21 PM: wrote: On 13 Nov 2004 05:07:38 -0800, (Tinkerntom) wrote: Funny how all the "Chicken Littles" come out of the woodwork every time a Republican gets elected President. Yeah, I know, "The sky is falling!" and "it's the end of the world as we know it". Blah, blah, blah. Their dire predictions never come to pass, but it doesn't stop them from repeating them ad nausem. Some people really need to get a life. Funny these all came about. http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in Berkeley, Ca. (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you reread the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to Canada." Rick That last one could be true! |
no one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation -
is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. strange how there is always enough money for war but not for the environment. If only there was a war against pollution... And those who are not with us, are? |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... But then there are reservoirs now that we can paddle and fish, where there was nothing before. I absolutely cannot believe that THIS got fanned in this newsgroup, of ALL places!! Kindly explain what you meant by 'there was nothing before'..?? --riverman |
in article ,
at wrote on 11/14/04 2:49 AM: no one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. strange how there is always enough money for war but not for the environment. If only there was a war against pollution... And those who are not with us, are? Hey, that's really good! Just like declaring "war on terror" gives Bush license to wage war wherever and however he wants, declear "war against pollution" and behave accordingly... |
I absolutely cannot believe that THIS got fanned in this newsgroup, of ALL
places!! Kindly explain what you meant by 'there was nothing before'..?? --riverman Hi there riverman, and all, Obviously there was something there before, but not a reservoir! I am in Colorado, where there is lots of WW, which is fine if you are into WW. But even the WW would and still does disappear, as the rivers run low at the end of the season. In the early season, floods were common. So the Corp of Eng. built reservoirs for flood control, and Denver Water Board, built water diversion projects. Farmers built Highline canal, to bring in irrigation water. Now WW paddlers build play parks, we boat and fish on the reservoirs, and dayhikers walk along the canal and enjoy the great outdoors. Is it a virgin wildplace experience? NO! Is it enjoyable and refreshing? Yes!! I believe that many of us paddlers would say we were born a hundred years too late! or maybe even more. You are right on wanting to enjoy the wild places. And that there are fewer and fewer. The problem I feel is when you attribute their loss to GW, and that is where you got cross wise with a bunch of us. Like a smoldering campfire the hot coals where already there. All you had to do was add a little fuel, and fan a little, or as the case may be, blow a lot of hot air! Don't be surprised if the fire builds up all of a sudden, and scorches your whiskers. To those who would question my reference to PBS tv programs, I did not cite them as factual documentation of what is going on in our environment. But as examples of the lack of agreement even among enviro types, of what is going on, how long it has been going on, the source of the problem, and the net result. Maybe the atmosphere is warming, and the ice is melting, and we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt. Unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism. In the meantime, keep on paddling, ur... maybe I should say go skiing, on all that manmade early season snow. Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KensisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
"Rick" wrote in message hlink.net... wrote: On 13 Nov 2004 05:07:38 -0800, (Tinkerntom) wrote: Funny how all the "Chicken Littles" come out of the woodwork every time a Republican gets elected President. Yeah, I know, "The sky is falling!" and "it's the end of the world as we know it". Blah, blah, blah. Their dire predictions never come to pass, but it doesn't stop them from repeating them ad nausem. Some people really need to get a life. Funny these all came about. http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in Berkeley, Ca. It may have some connection to Berkeley now but The Onion originated in Chicago and spread from here to other cities in the Midwest before making its way to the coasts. I routinely read printed versions of The Onion long before the internet was available to common citizen. Chicago is a native American word that means 'the onion,' or more specifically, 'the wild onion.' And no. It is not a source of reliable information. It's satire at its best. At least it used to be. It's just silly nowadays. It used to be you could be half way through reading an article before realizing it wasn't an actual news column. Peace DV (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you reread the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to Canada." Rick |
"Keenan Wellar"
I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people. I don't know where this came from, but sounds like someone has some other unresolved issues. I have heard liberals blaming their loss on everthing and everyone else than themselves, but I haven't heard this one before. Soon we should maybe expect that it was some witches in Salem! Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that! Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be accessing health care! You put the emphasis on the wrong syllabis! It is not the "progressive" part, but Liberal, and especially that which would end in a socialist country, that is rejected by the good conservative citizens of this great country. You set up a false dilemna, regarding free black, and women voting, as if those issues are still an issue, then include poor people accessing health care as being comparable. The first has to do with the rights of all people, not determined by the Constitution, but acknowledged by it. If we choose to give health care to all, that is our choice, our Constitutional right to choose. So far, the voters have not chosen to do so, beyond Medicare, and other present Federal and State programs. There is no Constitutional guarantee to the right to health care. All are presented with the privilege of working for their own dreams, if that includes health care, they can have it. There are many insurance companies, and health care providers who would be more than willing to take your money, and provide the best health care in the world. If we were to say that everyone should have health care, why not, everyone should have a car, a house, a house in the suburbs, or why stop there. I think everyone should have a house in Aspen, or Malibu, or Monterrey, and I think that Uncle Sam should give them whatever else they want. And of course everyone should have a job where they earn at least $50.00/hr. Now that sound pretty good. I think I should run for the Presidency on that platform. Sounds sort of familiar in fact, promise them everything, anything they want. Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that they are easily distracted! Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. That perspective is sad indeed. What is sad, is that we need you big hearted liberals to take care of all the down and out, to protect the enviroment, to assure the rest of us that we stay on the path, - and you have proven so ineffective! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis Life, Live it! |
Rick and Keenan
You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in Berkeley, Ca. (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you reread the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to Canada." Rick That last one could be true! Again, I take issue with you and your ilk, the question is not whether I understand that the above is satire, but whether you do? It seems to me that many of the Liberals have been drinking their own bilge for so long, that they fail to realize their ship finally sank! Please understand, I do not hold any ill will to you. In fact I would encourage you to take a drink of fresh clean water, for inspiration and information. Who knows, after the next four years, we made need all the fresh insight you have to offer! Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
Keenan
no one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. strange how there is always enough money for war but not for the environment. If only there was a war against pollution... And those who are not with us, are? Hey, that's really good! Just like declaring "war on terror" gives Bush license to wage war wherever and however he wants, declear "war against pollution" and behave accordingly... It should not surprise any of us that politicians always find money to spend on their pet projects. I just prefer this President's pets, than the alternative offering! I did work for the EPA, and the waste, and lack of significant goals, would not be exceeded by the Clinton war on terrorism, and blowing up tents with million dollar Cruise Missles. But then that was a good cover for Monica! Kerry had his opportunity to declare war on pollution, but chose not to, because he knew that it would not fly. The trial balloon was made of lead! Now is the time for you to start designing a new balloon. You can plan a test flight in 4 years. Hopefully you can present us with a viable alternative, and not just another Clinton! Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
It should not surprise any of us that politicians always find money to
spend on their pet projects. I just prefer this President's pets, than the alternative offering! So you are not with us in the war against pollution? |
http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html
You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in Berkeley, Ca. (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you reread the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to Canada." --Rick The Onion is produced in Madison Wisconsin, not Berkeley California. It is a satirical newspaper, you're right there. http://theonion.com |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... "Keenan Wellar" I think it's the move towards puritanism that scares people. I don't know where this came from, but sounds like someone has some other unresolved issues. I have heard liberals blaming their loss on everthing and everyone else than themselves, but I haven't heard this one before. Soon we should maybe expect that it was some witches in Salem! I'm neither American nor a "liberal" (at least not in the American sense of the word, although the precise American understanding of that word still eludes me) but it comes from simple observation. The fact that 11 states voted in favour of banning gay marriage, and the fact that there is clearly a move afoot to return abortion to illegal status, are two clear indicators. The Bush administration did indeed turn "homos" into the witches of the 21st century and actually won power doing it. Whenever liberalism manages to gain a toe-hold, it's slapped down in the next election cycle. Americans don't want a liberal/progressive/socialist country, period. Thank goodness for that! Yeah! Who wants to be progressive! It's bad enough that black people are free and women have the vote! Next thing you know poor people will be accessing health care! You put the emphasis on the wrong syllabis! It is not the "progressive" part, but Liberal, and especially that which would end in a socialist country, that is rejected by the good conservative citizens of this great country. How can homosexuals getting married have anything to do with socialism?!?!? You set up a false dilemna, regarding free black, and women voting, as if those issues are still an issue Well, actually, many black people seem to feel that it is! Especially with old white dudes hanging around the voting area waiting to "challenge" them! then include poor people accessing health care as being comparable. The first has to do with the rights of all people, not determined by the Constitution, but acknowledged by it. If we choose to give health care to all, that is our choice, our Constitutional right to choose. So far, the voters have not chosen to do so, beyond Medicare, and other present Federal and State programs. There is no Constitutional guarantee to the right to health care. All are presented with the privilege of working for their own dreams, if that includes health care, they can have it. There are many insurance companies, and health care providers who would be more than willing to take your money, and provide the best health care in the world. Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose that's just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh? If we were to say that everyone should have health care, why not, everyone should have a car, a house, a house in the suburbs, or why stop there. I think everyone should have a house in Aspen, or Malibu, or Monterrey, and I think that Uncle Sam should give them whatever else they want. And of course everyone should have a job where they earn at least $50.00/hr. Now that sound pretty good. I think I should run for the Presidency on that platform. Sounds sort of familiar in fact, promise them everything, anything they want. Y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that they are easily distracted! Uh. Whatever all that means. The environment IS the economy. It just ain't rightly recognized as such by certain folk. Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. That perspective is sad indeed. What is sad, is that we need you big hearted liberals to take care of all the down and out, to protect the enviroment, to assure the rest of us that we stay on the path, - and you have proven so ineffective! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis Life, Live it! OK, well, back to regular programming. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Rick and Keenan You do realize that the Onion is a satirical paper produced in Berkeley, Ca. (and has been since, , do you not? If not, I suggest that you reread the articles with that in mind. Look at the front page and you may notice Kerry arresting Bin Laden, and the "Nations' Wildlife Fleeing to Canada." Rick That last one could be true! Again, I take issue with you and your ilk, the question is not whether I understand that the above is satire, but whether you do? It seems to me that many of the Liberals have been drinking their own bilge for so long, that they fail to realize their ship finally sank! Please understand, I do not hold any ill will to you. In fact I would encourage you to take a drink of fresh clean water, for inspiration and information. Who knows, after the next four years, we made need all the fresh insight you have to offer! Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! Have you checked the water you are drinking? |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Keenan no one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. strange how there is always enough money for war but not for the environment. If only there was a war against pollution... And those who are not with us, are? Hey, that's really good! Just like declaring "war on terror" gives Bush license to wage war wherever and however he wants, declear "war against pollution" and behave accordingly... It should not surprise any of us that politicians always find money to spend on their pet projects. I just prefer this President's pets, than the alternative offering! I did work for the EPA, and the waste, and lack of significant goals, would not be exceeded by the Clinton war on terrorism, and blowing up tents with million dollar Cruise Missles. But then that was a good cover for Monica! Kerry had his opportunity to declare war on pollution, but chose not to, because he knew that it would not fly. The trial balloon was made of lead! Now is the time for you to start designing a new balloon. You can plan a test flight in 4 years. Hopefully you can present us with a viable alternative, and not just another Clinton! Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually. One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost impeached. One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets re-elected! |
"riverman" wrote in message ...
I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt. --riverman I have read, and reread, and posted follow ups along this thread. I have found it stimulating and enlightening to listen to all your input. But I have come up with a question, which I am not finding an answer. You say, you mean this and that, but what do you mean by "wilderness"? It sounds like you are located near the Grand Canyon, where the air is becoming more polluted. Others speak of the Giant Redwoods, and Denali. But it seems to me the wilderness is already gone according to the Souix, and Shoshone, Utes, and Blackfeet, and all the other hundreds of tribes, many which have dissapeared as well. Even what we call wilderness would not be so, if seen through their eyes. It seems to me, that wilderness is something we conceive of in our own mind, depending on our own particular interest and bias. Who is living in the White House, has little to do with the remaining wilderness, and the preservation of our particular corner. My relatives were ejected in the early 1900s, from Cade's Cove in what is now Great Smokey Mtn Nat. Park. The great enviromentalist President T. Roosevelt decided to set aside this area of wilderness, for everyone to enjoy. Now for my relatives this really ruined the wilderness experience, and for the mass of humanity that decends on the loop road during the peak tourist season, I can't see that this is much of a wilderness experience either. Yet, there are mountains and trees, flowering dales, and everyone seems to enjoy the vista. Is the wilderness only to do with the big places, with big mtns, and big trees, and big canyons. Could it be that we who are content to paddle, should not learn to appreciate the wilderness in small places,and be willing to share this with others. Instead of getting involved in the blame game, and trying to hang our lack of ability to observe the wilderness all around us on the current President, which really just detracts from the solitude of our hidden places with all the shouting! The wilderness is gone, since even before the Mayflower landed. With the first man setting foot in the wild place, we started changing it, even if it was a mocassin clad foot on the Bering Strait. It is just a matter of degree, and how fast it is changing. For the buffalo it changed real fast. They were unable to adapt, we must adapt, or go the way of the buffalo. Being a romantic about the wild places sounds great, but will not change history. Having grown up in the 60's, and played hippie for awhile, I love the Liberals with all their romantic idealism. However that era is also gone. We have to learn to adapt, and compromise, even on the enviroment, and we all will survive. Is this dribble? Yes, but you tell me about what you mean by "wilderness", and if we all start talking about that, then we will be talking about what we really want to be talking about and changing. Then the politicians will listen. That's what politicians do, is listen (take Polls), and talk (I think we know about that part), because they like to be popular (majority vote). Is any of this wrong, no, it's just the way it is, and that is reality! Otherwise there is just all this squealing in the wind, that they all tune out and turn off, which is not what any of us want for our living place! Thanks for bringing up the subject, no offense meant to any one. Let's just make sure the song we are singing is what we really want to be singing, and learn to sing in harmony. None of us are irrelevant, nore should we be irreverent, and we should always respect the President. Whomever he is, because he represents us all whether we like it or not. If we fail on any of these, we will only hurt those, and that which we love the most, the place we live! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote:
Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually. One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost impeached. One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets re-elected! Again you demonstrate, how out of contact you are with the issues that are important to the US voter. For a Canadian, maybe that is not too important, but for the liberals down here, this lack of discreation spelt major losses. Those who make similar observations down here, and try to base their political position on this quicksand, are doomed to repeat history, happily for me! As far as a later post in the thread, I drink Aquafina, and filtered tap. Protects me from all the crap that the Liberal environmentalist have failed to remove! Considering, they had the last 30 or 40 years to do it! Touching on the subject of American Puritanism, it seems that there is some real sensitivity here. By modifing it with American, you imply that there are various kinds, and that they may be more acceptable to you. If what you mean, is Conservative Fundementalism, that is a different thing entirely. The Puritans were actually a fairly liberal bunch, and is represented most strongly in the state of Pennsylvania with the Amish. A very loving group of people, in a blue state. The CFR crowd, on the other hand, is a brilliant crowd of rascals that will do almost anything to win. Yes, it started in the Clinton era, with pointing out his picadillos. Then once in power, they even had the audacity to do what they said they were going to do withour really asking the Dems permission. Sure sometimes the Dems stood in the way, but that just meant the CFR's just dug in deeper, and ralleyed their crowd to get out and vote. Sounds like what the Dems need to do! Although I doubt that they will catch President Bush with his pants down, talk about squandering political capital. Then they really had the CFR's on the ropes, with their protesting the way the war is being fought, until the best they could do was offer a old Viet vet, which required fighting the Viet war all over again (not that I have anything against Vets, but oddly, they chose to be on what they perceived as the moral high ground, this time). And all this before the current struggle could be addressed. Talk about mismanging the play clock! And now there is all this squealing about having to give the Dems their fair share of the Congressional agenda. They lost, they don't get much. And yet the squealing goes on! Show some dignity, and suck it up! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it! |
in article , Tinkerntom at
wrote on 11/15/04 10:54 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote: Interesting. This ties in with American Puritanism, actually. One President lies about whether or not he got a blow job, and he is almost impeached. One President lies to start a war killing thousands of people, and he gets re-elected! Again you demonstrate, how out of contact you are with the issues that are important to the US voter. Not at all. I understand that Americans think one blow job is more serious than dropping bombs on thousands of people. Touching on the subject of American Puritanism, it seems that there is some real sensitivity here. By modifing it with American, you imply that there are various kinds, and that they may be more acceptable to you. If what you mean, is Conservative Fundementalism, that is a different thing entirely. The Puritans were actually a fairly liberal bunch, and is represented most strongly in the state of Pennsylvania with the Amish. A very loving group of people, in a blue state. I'm definitely not talking about the Amish. I'm talking about the anti-homo more guns more jesus crowd that seems to dominate the middle and south of the country. The CFR crowd, on the other hand, is a brilliant crowd of rascals that will do almost anything to win. Yes, it started in the Clinton era, with pointing out his picadillos. Then once in power, they even had the audacity to do what they said they were going to do withour really asking the Dems permission. Sure sometimes the Dems stood in the way, but that just meant the CFR's just dug in deeper, and ralleyed their crowd to get out and vote. Sounds like what the Dems need to do! As long as Bush can keep 50%+ of Americans in a perpetual state of fear and violence and effectively pander to hatred, I don't think the Dems have a chance. However, I would agree that their campaign was terrible, it all started with Kerry's bizarre and useless speech at the convention. |
Tinkerntom wrote:
Of course I am not for pollution. This simplistic approach which presents itself as exclusive and elite intellectualism is the reason you lost. You apparently still don't get it as has been pointed out many times in this thread already. Should we assume that because the Liberals, lost, that all is lost regarding the environment. No, it is just how the battle is going to be fought, and I hope that you do not prove yourself ineffective again, for the environments sake! It was just the logical approach of your Bush that I used, so if you call that simplistic... I agree. Or to use your words with other goals: Of course I am not for terrorism. No, it is just how the battle is going to be fought, and I hope that you do not prove yourself ineffective again, for the worlds sake! As it is now, the war against terrorism is inefficient an ineffective causing many innocent deaths and making things worse instead of better. And with the existence of the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, the state has become the enemy and is creating new seeds for more terrorism in all the world. |
On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:
Socialism is an unworkable and failed philophy, at least when attempted on any kind of a large scale. It leads to reduced freedoms, confiscatory taxation levels and poor quality services. As a Canadian, you know that, though perhaps you're unwilling to admit it. Canada's government is not socialist. It's a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected parliament. Perhaps you could give us some specific examples of where there are freedoms that are available in the US that are not available in Canada. I can certainly give examples of freedoms available here that are not available to Americans. At current exchange rates, the Canadian dollar is at purchasing power parity with the US. In other words, US$0.83 (C$1.00) buys the same goods and services in Canada as US$1.00 does in the US. That is after the "confiscatory" tax levels. Last I checked, corporate tax levels in Canada are lower than in the US. Poor quality services? Examples please. You can dump on Keenan all you want, but dumping on Canada needs proof. :-) Mike |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ... I absolutely cannot believe that THIS got fanned in this newsgroup, of ALL places!! Kindly explain what you meant by 'there was nothing before'..?? --riverman Hi there riverman, and all, Obviously there was something there before, but not a reservoir! I am in Colorado, where there is lots of WW, which is fine if you are into WW. But even the WW would and still does disappear, as the rivers run low at the end of the season. In the early season, floods were common. So the Corp of Eng. built reservoirs for flood control, and Denver Water Board, built water diversion projects. Farmers built Highline canal, to bring in irrigation water. Now WW paddlers build play parks, we boat and fish on the reservoirs, and dayhikers walk along the canal and enjoy the great outdoors. Is it a virgin wildplace experience? NO! Is it enjoyable and refreshing? Yes!! I believe that many of us paddlers would say we were born a hundred years too late! or maybe even more. You are right on wanting to enjoy the wild places. And that there are fewer and fewer. The problem I feel is when you attribute their loss to GW, and that is where you got cross wise with a bunch of us. Like a smoldering campfire the hot coals where already there. All you had to do was add a little fuel, and fan a little, or as the case may be, blow a lot of hot air! Don't be surprised if the fire builds up all of a sudden, and scorches your whiskers. To those who would question my reference to PBS tv programs, I did not cite them as factual documentation of what is going on in our environment. But as examples of the lack of agreement even among enviro types, of what is going on, how long it has been going on, the source of the problem, and the net result. Maybe the atmosphere is warming, and the ice is melting, and we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt. Unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism. In the meantime, keep on paddling, ur... maybe I should say go skiing, on all that manmade early season snow. Tinkerntom: I'm not sure where to start. You have a few valid points you bring up, but there is a lot of hyperbole and jingoism in your post as well, which makes it hard to discuss _real_ issues. Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing floods are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of Reclamation line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20 years, with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to where they have disbanded their dam building department. The environmental, social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex than the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits and deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing this with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in the 70s. That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want, to hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have forsight, and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled rivers, uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are driven to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly') because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and steadily developing monoculture. And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it has lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen 'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless expansion, unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of conservation are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It is pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with someone when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even make sense. Yes, scientists disagree. That's the essence of science. They disagree, then that spurs them on to discover more and more about what they are disagreeing about to clarify their Understanding. That is much different than saying 'because they disagree, then they have no validity.' Its the quality and intelligence of the discussion, the evidence that is produced during those disagreements that is the hallmark of scientific discourse. Being threatened by the fact that intelligent and inquisitive people are investigating something and arguing openly about their findings is another indication that you seem to be coming from a referential framework that is very well outdated....like from the Dark Ages or something. A society without disagreement sounds far too dictatorial to me. I cherish the disagreement, you should too. As long as it is mindful, based in fact and research, and with testable hyptotheses. Yeah, things happened during Clinton's tenure. Also during Bush, Sr.s, Reagans, Carter, etc. But the hallmark of THIS Presidency is that there is less an attitude of preserving biodiversity and wilderness, and more of an attitude of opening up wilderness areas for development under the guide of 'Wise Use', to allow development of lands and resources put aside with preservation in mind by relaxing prohibitions. To allow degradion of air and water resources in favor of immediate profit, to encourage practices that might well be accelerating global issues like Global Warming. And when you take a pristine, or seldom-used undeveloped area and put in oil rigs, roads, logging trucks and relax accountability for 'management' practices, you are taking that resource through a doorway that only goes one way. You can't get your virginity back, you can't get your reputation back, and when you develop pristine areas, you can't get that pristineness back. Being able to adapt to that kind of change is not a sign of sucess. You want scorched whiskers? Just keep on ignoring environmental impacts. --riverman - |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote: You can dump on Keenan all you want, but dumping on Canada needs proof. :-) Mike I AM CANADIAN! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com