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.

"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.

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.

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?

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...

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?

"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!

"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!

"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.