OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

You righties will stop at nothing. What a bunch of assholes.

On Fox & Friends (July 19, 7:10 a.m.) Vanessa Kerry, daughter of John,
was interviewed about the preparations for the democratic convention.
After a couple of minutes of prep talk, E.D. Hill changed the subject
with, "It's no shock to you but your dad comes across as aloof.... and
intellectually superior. When you were growing up, what's the bad
thing that sticks out in your mind?"

Vanessa refused to play, among other things she said "being there for
me" and "he gave me a sense of great strength - an extraordinary
gift." Steve Doocy followed with a question about the Secret Service
code name Vanessa had selected for herself. She refused to play again.
When the interview ended, Doocy said the code name she selected was
'the hot one."

Comment: I guess the "fair and balanced" part was the discussion about
the preparation for the convention. They covered it, so the snide
comments are OK.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

basskisser wrote:

You righties will stop at nothing. What a bunch of assholes.

On Fox & Friends (July 19, 7:10 a.m.) Vanessa Kerry, daughter of John,
was interviewed about the preparations for the democratic convention.
After a couple of minutes of prep talk, E.D. Hill changed the subject
with, "It's no shock to you but your dad comes across as aloof.... and
intellectually superior. When you were growing up, what's the bad
thing that sticks out in your mind?"

Vanessa refused to play, among other things she said "being there for
me" and "he gave me a sense of great strength - an extraordinary
gift." Steve Doocy followed with a question about the Secret Service
code name Vanessa had selected for herself. She refused to play again.
When the interview ended, Doocy said the code name she selected was
'the hot one."

Comment: I guess the "fair and balanced" part was the discussion about
the preparation for the convention. They covered it, so the snide
comments are OK.

I wondered where Doocy went...he was on the NBC affiliate in DC years
ago, and came across then as an absolute idiot. Glad he found the
*right* home for it.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

Also...this is the BOATING GROUP.

alt.politics is just a click away


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
You righties will stop at nothing. What a bunch of assholes.

On Fox & Friends (July 19, 7:10 a.m.) Vanessa Kerry, daughter of John,
was interviewed about the preparations for the democratic convention.
After a couple of minutes of prep talk, E.D. Hill changed the subject
with, "It's no shock to you but your dad comes across as aloof.... and
intellectually superior. When you were growing up, what's the bad
thing that sticks out in your mind?"

Vanessa refused to play, among other things she said "being there for
me" and "he gave me a sense of great strength - an extraordinary
gift." Steve Doocy followed with a question about the Secret Service
code name Vanessa had selected for herself. She refused to play again.
When the interview ended, Doocy said the code name she selected was
'the hot one."

Comment: I guess the "fair and balanced" part was the discussion about
the preparation for the convention. They covered it, so the snide
comments are OK.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

You mean, the out of control, law-breaking Bush kids? Like father, like
daughers...and nieces.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"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.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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?

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Otherwise don't complain when the other side does to you, what you do
so willingly to them.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Dave Hall wrote:

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?

Sure. It's the gospel truth.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"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?

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Otherwise don't complain when the other side does to you, what you do
so willingly to them.

Dave

I guess you see no difference between the candidates bashing each other, and
the press going after someone's kids. It was explained to you that Bush's
daughters generated their own publicity. They were illegally involved with
alcohol, remember? That makes news even if the kids are NOT famous. When you
hear news stories about fraternity hazing and illegal booze on college
campuses, you probably think it's left wing propaganda.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:22:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
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?

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Otherwise don't complain when the other side does to you, what you do
so willingly to them.

Dave

I guess you see no difference between the candidates bashing each other, and
the press going after someone's kids.

It's all a part of the game to see who can rake the most muck against
the other side. Both sides do it. So before you bash one side, look at
the track record for your own side. It's equally shameful.

It was explained to you that Bush's
daughters generated their own publicity. They were illegally involved with
alcohol, remember? That makes news even if the kids are NOT famous.

Actually, no it doesn't. Kids are busted on almost a daily basis for
possession of alcohol and under aged drinking. I was cited for it
myself once. Guess what? My name didn't appear on the 6:00 news.

When you
hear news stories about fraternity hazing and illegal booze on college
campuses, you probably think it's left wing propaganda.

That stuff's been going on for years. It's part of the rite of passage
for going to college and/or pledging a fraternity. The only things
that make it newsworthy are when:
A. They go too far and someone dies.
B. Some sniveling little whiner wants to bring down a whole
brotherhood because they can't cut it.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:07:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

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?

Sure. It's the gospel truth.


Says you, who has yet to prove any of it.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Dave Hall wrote:


Actually, no it doesn't. Kids are busted on almost a daily basis for
possession of alcohol and under aged drinking. I was cited for it
myself once. Guess what? My name didn't appear on the 6:00 news.


Of course not. You're a nobody.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:07:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

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?

Sure. It's the gospel truth.


Says you, who has yet to prove any of it.

Dave


Prove what? That the Bush daughters have booze problems, just like their
daddy? No more proof needed.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:07:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

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?

Sure. It's the gospel truth.


Says you, who has yet to prove any of it.

Dave


Prove what? That the Bush daughters have booze problems, just like their
daddy? No more proof needed.

Obviously not nearly as bad as your mental problems Krause.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:22:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
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?

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Otherwise don't complain when the other side does to you, what you do
so willingly to them.

Dave

I guess you see no difference between the candidates bashing each other,
and
the press going after someone's kids.

It's all a part of the game to see who can rake the most muck against
the other side. Both sides do it. So before you bash one side, look at
the track record for your own side. It's equally shameful.

It was explained to you that Bush's
daughters generated their own publicity. They were illegally involved
with
alcohol, remember? That makes news even if the kids are NOT famous.

Actually, no it doesn't. Kids are busted on almost a daily basis for
possession of alcohol and under aged drinking. I was cited for it
myself once. Guess what? My name didn't appear on the 6:00 news.

When you
hear news stories about fraternity hazing and illegal booze on college
campuses, you probably think it's left wing propaganda.

That stuff's been going on for years. It's part of the rite of passage
for going to college and/or pledging a fraternity. The only things
that make it newsworthy are when:
A. They go too far and someone dies.
B. Some sniveling little whiner wants to bring down a whole
brotherhood because they can't cut it.

Dave

The moment a frat member is arrested, it makes news around here. We have
morals. People want to know what's going on at the half dozen or so colleges
that surround this city. The Bush whores were treated like anyone else who
breaks the law, at least in terms of press exposure.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
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. 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. Kerry's daughter has done nothing to
warrant the behavior of the Fox people.


Wah.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:42:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Actually, no it doesn't. Kids are busted on almost a daily basis for
possession of alcohol and under aged drinking. I was cited for it
myself once. Guess what? My name didn't appear on the 6:00 news.


Of course not. You're a nobody.

Thank you for making my point for me.


Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"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.

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.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

You mean, the out of control, law-breaking Bush kids? Like father, like
daughers...and nieces.

Once your children walk out the door you have no control over what they do,
you can only hope that what you have taught them will lead them down the
right path.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ...
"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.

I don't think it says anything.

One of his daughters didn't attend her own graduation.

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Bert Robbins wrote:

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

You mean, the out of control, law-breaking Bush kids? Like father, like
daughers...and nieces.

Once your children walk out the door you have no control over what they do,
you can only hope that what you have taught them will lead them down the
right path.

krause didn't have the opportunity to teach his children, and it's
probably for the better. Due to the way in which he treated their
mother, they are estranged from him. You'll notice in *all* the
{{{supposed}}} personal details he regularly offers here, *nothing* is
ever said about his children by the first marriage.

-- Charlie

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

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

You mean, the out of control, law-breaking Bush kids? Like father, like
daughers...and nieces.

Once your children walk out the door you have no control over what they do,
you can only hope that what you have taught them will lead them down the
right path.

The Bush girls probably thought that since it was "ok" that their daddy
was a drunken lawbreaker during his youth and young manhood, it was "ok"
for them, too. It's the lesson they learned from Daddy.



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

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Curtis CCR wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ...
"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.

I don't think it says anything.

One of his daughters didn't attend her own graduation.

Indeed, a family proud of its intellectual achievements.

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

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

I don't think it says anything.

One of his daughters didn't attend her own graduation.

Indeed, a family proud of its intellectual achievements.

Installing a new roll of toilet paper, while drunk, without poking anyone's
eye out?

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

I don't think it says anything.

One of his daughters didn't attend her own graduation.

Indeed, a family proud of its intellectual achievements.

Installing a new roll of toilet paper, while drunk, without poking anyone's
eye out?




It's a tough family to figure. Dubya's father, while not one of my
favorite presidents, is no slouch intellectually, and neither is Barbara
Bush. The grandfather, Prescott Bush, was very smart. What happened to
Dubya? Too much drink and dope? What?

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

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

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?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:40:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

I don't think it says anything.

One of his daughters didn't attend her own graduation.

Indeed, a family proud of its intellectual achievements.

Installing a new roll of toilet paper, while drunk, without poking anyone's
eye out?

But did they inhale?

Dave

OT More from the Republican Pigs.
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

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?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5 years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not expect
to pay more for produce?