| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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! |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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! |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Where are the best places for marine audio prices? Jensen Feedback? | General | |||
| Those wild and wacky Aussies... | General | |||
| Ride the wild surf! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
