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?

wrote in message ...
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?


See that is exactly the problem, unless I fight the battle, the same
as you do, then the Liberal goes into the very rant and finger
pointing, that even in this last election, proved them ineffective.
The post election response has been almost spastic, and certainly sad!

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!

Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it!

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.

"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" 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.