On 20 Jul 2004 12:05:57 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 20 Jul 2004 04:32:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"1900" wrote in message . ..
So what's the problem? How quickly you forget the assassination of Bush's
daughters... I say...tough ****.

No, I don't forget. The Bush's daughters put themselves in that lime
light. Kerry's daughter has done nothing but be a stand up lady for
her dad. It's sad the right has went so far. Fox, because they are
"fair and balanced", have to slam every democrat they can, even if
it's going after Kerry's daughter.

And the almost non-stop assault on Bush and the republicans by the
democrats and their minions is ok?


You're talking apples and oranges now. The "assault" on Bush and the
republicans are truths.

They are NOT truths, they are suppositions based on subjective bias by
those who disagree.

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.

Kerry's daughter has done nothing to
warrant the behavior of the Fox people.

She's hawking for her old man. That makes her a target.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote in message
She's hawking for her old man. That makes her a target.

Dave

All well and fine, but the "news" interview done by Fox was nothing
short of an attempt to get her on the air and belittle her. Reminds me
of third grade kids. Bushco will stop at nothing to be able to
continue their terror on the rest of the world, and the citizens of
the United States.

"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.

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

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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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?

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