And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system
used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other
than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that
the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Today's question: What do you get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists, 20 Nobel Laureates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed squarely at BushCo's thoroughly atrocious record of
cover-ups and obfuscations and outright lies regarding the health of
the planet?

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

You would get bad science, with these same Scientists trying to protect
their grants.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons

Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons

Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H


Yeah, sure...

For a cheap laugh:

http://www.hauntedmansion.info/bushin41point2.htm

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Pollution Credits"

Thanks, Calif. I'll look it up and see what I can learn.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

Ah, yes. The unbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this unbiased group with all the intellectual integrity
of Harry Krause:


John H

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

Thanks. That's why I couldn't find links. Busy here....links for John will
arrive later, after I strangle the telephone. Friggin' customers keep
interrupting me with business.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system
used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other
than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says
that
the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

It makes plenty of sense if you run a company that pollutes plenty and is
rolling in cash. You buy your way out of the problem. This plan won't last
much longer, though, in my opinion. I think the country, as a whole, is
about to wake up from a long slumber.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill