OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:37:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

By wanting a post to an elected office, you
deserve to be on the hot seat for the war crimes, environmental
idiocies, and other atrocities.

None of which have occurred.

Let's head off in another direction. Let's tweeze apart the first paragraph
and pick a subject: "environmental idiocies". You say they have not
occurred.

Please list all policy changes instituted by your president and explain why
they are not at LEAST idiotic, if not criminal. You should be able to come
up with at least three separate aspects of his environmental policies, since
you read so much.


I'm not the one making the accusation. It's up to you to make the
point that this president is somehow "bad" for the environment. If and
when you do, I'll be more than willing to dissect them piece by piece
and explain to you why you're chasing shadows.

You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Dave Hall wrote:


I'm not the one making the accusation. It's up to you to make the
point that this president is somehow "bad" for the environment. If and
when you do, I'll be more than willing to dissect them piece by piece
and explain to you why you're chasing shadows.

What you are saying here, ****-for-brains, is that no matter what facts
anyone posts that show Bush to be an anti-environmentalist, you'll
attempt to dispute them.


You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

There's no mutual exclusivity in protecting the environment and in
providing jobs. In fact, in just one area, cleaning up our environment
and producing much cleaner and more energy efficient vehicles, will
provide millions of new jobs. Just repairing the damage to
infrastructure caused by pollution would produce at least a million new
jobs, since we are barely keeping our highways and bridges operational
these days.

You really have your head way up your ass. Your children are going to
inherit a horrific planet, Dave, in addition to a bunch of totally
pooched values.



--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:37:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

By wanting a post to an elected office, you
deserve to be on the hot seat for the war crimes, environmental
idiocies, and other atrocities.

None of which have occurred.

Let's head off in another direction. Let's tweeze apart the first
paragraph
and pick a subject: "environmental idiocies". You say they have not
occurred.

Please list all policy changes instituted by your president and explain
why
they are not at LEAST idiotic, if not criminal. You should be able to
come
up with at least three separate aspects of his environmental policies,
since
you read so much.


I'm not the one making the accusation.

You most certainly did. You used the phrase "none of which have occurred",
which applied to the paragraph containing "environmental idiocies".
Therefore, you believe these idiocies have not occurred. You do not HAVE a
list in your mind because you're not in any way familiar with what your
deity has done. So, you're asking ME to provide one. But since you claim the
bad policies don't exist, you are simply saying what you were told to say.



You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

It's highly unlikely that electric companies will take their manufacturing
facilities overseas.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


There's no mutual exclusivity in protecting the environment and in
providing jobs.

Wrong, Harry. Caring for the environment will destroy this country's
economy. Dave's minister told him so.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:00:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


By wanting a post to an elected office, you
deserve to be on the hot seat for the war crimes, environmental
idiocies, and other atrocities.

None of which have occurred.

Let's head off in another direction. Let's tweeze apart the first
paragraph
and pick a subject: "environmental idiocies". You say they have not
occurred.

Please list all policy changes instituted by your president and explain
why
they are not at LEAST idiotic, if not criminal. You should be able to
come
up with at least three separate aspects of his environmental policies,
since
you read so much.


I'm not the one making the accusation.

You most certainly did. You used the phrase "none of which have occurred",
which applied to the paragraph containing "environmental idiocies".

Which someone else claimed. I merely rebuffed that accusation. To the
best of my knowledge there are no major policies that Bush himself
have signed (Without congressional approval), which weakens any
environmental issues to any great degree.

Therefore, you believe these idiocies have not occurred.

Until you can prove that they have, I'll maintain my assertion.

You do not HAVE a
list in your mind because you're not in any way familiar with what your
deity has done.

Because it has not broken the threshold of importance, or it simply
isn't true. If it were, I'd be aware of it.

You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

It's highly unlikely that electric companies will take their manufacturing
facilities overseas.

But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:00:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


By wanting a post to an elected office, you
deserve to be on the hot seat for the war crimes, environmental
idiocies, and other atrocities.

None of which have occurred.

Let's head off in another direction. Let's tweeze apart the first
paragraph
and pick a subject: "environmental idiocies". You say they have not
occurred.

Please list all policy changes instituted by your president and
explain
why
they are not at LEAST idiotic, if not criminal. You should be able to
come
up with at least three separate aspects of his environmental policies,
since
you read so much.


I'm not the one making the accusation.

You most certainly did. You used the phrase "none of which have
occurred",
which applied to the paragraph containing "environmental idiocies".

Which someone else claimed. I merely rebuffed that accusation. To the
best of my knowledge there are no major policies that Bush himself
have signed (Without congressional approval), which weakens any
environmental issues to any great degree.

The "best of your knowledge" is quite a disqualifier. Let's try this: Right
now, are you able to type a short list of legislation your deity has signed
or is considering, using just 1-5 words to describe each item? Like this:

1) Paint kitchen
2) Get shoes repaired
3) Stop bathing daughter - she's 14.

Hint: If you say you're not "up on those issues", you're guilty of treason.


Therefore, you believe these idiocies have not occurred.

Until you can prove that they have, I'll maintain my assertion.

I'm busy, too. YOU do the work this time.



You do not HAVE a
list in your mind because you're not in any way familiar with what your
deity has done.

Because it has not broken the threshold of importance, or it simply
isn't true. If it were, I'd be aware of it.

Not important? That's treason. "Simply isn't true"? Silly. It is true, but
you're not aware of it.



You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

It's highly unlikely that electric companies will take their
manufacturing
facilities overseas.

But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

OK. You think electric companies shouldn't have to be forced to make changes
because it would cost money. Right? Gee...ya think? Now we're getting
somewhere. Here's a question: What level of environmental damage would have
to occur before YOU would say "Uh oh. I think it's time for someone to slap
those boys and get things fixed"? Or, is there NO level of such damage that
would change your thinking?

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:44:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

OK. You think electric companies shouldn't have to be forced to make changes
because it would cost money. Right? Gee...ya think? Now we're getting
somewhere. Here's a question: What level of environmental damage would have
to occur before YOU would say "Uh oh. I think it's time for someone to slap
those boys and get things fixed"? Or, is there NO level of such damage that
would change your thinking?


I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:44:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

OK. You think electric companies shouldn't have to be forced to make
changes
because it would cost money. Right? Gee...ya think? Now we're getting
somewhere. Here's a question: What level of environmental damage would
have
to occur before YOU would say "Uh oh. I think it's time for someone to
slap
those boys and get things fixed"? Or, is there NO level of such damage
that
would change your thinking?


I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install? The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ...

The Bush whores were treated like anyone else who
breaks the law, at least in terms of press exposure.

I would comment on the point you are trying to make, but I am too tied
up laughing. You guys have dropped to referring to the President's
daughters as "whores" in a thread that started by arguing that it was
republicans taking the low ground.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

The Bush whores were treated like anyone else who
breaks the law, at least in terms of press exposure.

I would comment on the point you are trying to make, but I am too tied
up laughing. You guys have dropped to referring to the President's
daughters as "whores" in a thread that started by arguing that it was
republicans taking the low ground.

Your president didn't attend the graduation of one of his own daughters.
That says a lot.