Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.
"John H" wrote in message news 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! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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!" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 news 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! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|