BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 22 Mar 01 - 02:21 PM

I almost choked on my coffee this morning when I heard that Cheney said we needed more nuclear power plants because they don't give off CO2!

One question for any Bush apologists: When he speaks about balancing environmental and business concerns in a search for "cost-effective" energy regulations, is he considering the hidden costs be included? Shouldn't the cost of nuclear waste disposal, land restoration, catastrophic accident cleanup, etc. be a "cost of doing business" for the industry, rather than a pass-through to the American public?

And I'm not even touching on the cost of restoring air and water quality, or the alternative cost of medical care, when pollutants are released into the environment at a "cost-effective" level.

Now the Bush administration is rolling back Clinton-era regulations requiring the posting of bonds by businesses engaged in activity that can have environmental impact. What gall! These guys make a fortune and then walk away. . .But, oh yeah, "What did I expect?"

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Mar 01 - 10:35 AM

I think the last paragraph says it all and clearly lays out what the future holds.

Cheney Warns U.S. on Energy (AP/Reuters/ABCNews)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney warned Wednesday that the United States must generate more of its own energy or the country risks power shortages like those in California, but on a national scale.

Cheney cited estimates that the United States will need 1,300 new power plants over the next 20 years - roughly 65 each year - to have adequate generating capacity. Plus, he said, those plants will need other infrastructure, such as a means of obtaining the coal or gas and transmission lines.

``Our infrastructure in the energy area is very limited,'' Cheney told MSNBC's ``Hardball.'' ``It's very important we get on with this business of making certain we've got enough energy in the future or we will find that the problems in California today are in fact national in scope and affect all parts of the country.''

As it is, Cheney said, California's problems are spreading into surrounding states partly because of a Clinton administration order for utilities in those states to sell power to California.

``We've got some serious problems there,'' Cheney said. ``We've got to find ways to either increase the supply of energy or reduce the demand for energy. ... This is not something we got into overnight, and we're not going to get out of it overnight.''

Cheney, chairman of the president's energy task force, was echoing concerns voiced earlier this week by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who said a failure to address energy supply problems stands to threaten economic prosperity and even national security.

The vice president said the task force's recommendations would focus on long-term solutions, but an important part will focus on the environment.

``In many cases, in recent years, we've had an approach that isn't balanced because it's been so easy to stop projects,'' Cheney said. ``Nobody wants to be able to see a transmission line from their front yard. Nobody wants a gas pipeline through their community. Nobody wants a power plant in their county. ... It's going to be very important that we change the circumstances if we're going to move forward.'

Given the VP's strong ties to utilities I suppose a massive conservation effort is out of the question?

And I'm equally sure that the intent will be to "minimize environmental impact". Which will take us to the same place as all good intentions. I'd blame the majority of voters who voted for Bush, but then, they didn't.

Regards

John

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 01 - 09:13 AM

That's known as attribution of copyrighted material, Doug. A common courtesy. They hardly need the "publicity".

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 01 - 09:11 AM

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 10:58 PM

Hey Greg, I'm sure the Guardian Weekly appreciates the publicity! Right on! DougR

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 09:24 PM

Another viewpoint: apologies for the length; there was no way to post a link.

International News / Clinton-hounders guilty of hypocrisy / Martin Kettle

Clinton-hounders guilty of hypocrisy

Washington diary by Martin Kettle

    People here keep claiming that the Clinton era is over, but that is hard to believe. Every day we are solemnly told the nation has moved on, and that the Bush era has at last begun in earnest. Yet every day we seem to move backward, not forward.

   On the Larry King Show on CNN one night last week the guests included Bob Barr, Congress's chief Bill-baiter, Barbara Olson, one of Washington's professional Hillary-haters, and Susan McDougal, pardoned Arkansas friend of the Clintons. Not even the Seattle earthquake could deflect these usual suspects from their mission to keep the Clinton era alive for our delectation.

   The tabloids recently featured cover stories about the Clintons' impending divorce ("a done deal", said one). One tabloid offered the latest lowdown on the Bill Clinton-Denise Rich White House love affair ("Of course Bill slept with Denise", according to an unnamed "Washington socialite"). If this is the post-Clinton era, then the media, at least, are in deep-throated denial.

   Last week the House government reform committee, chaired by Dan Burton of Indiana, another life member of the Clinton-hounders club, spent an entire day probing further into Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. The session started early and finished late, and was broadcast live on all cable news channels. The committee's inquiries are going nowhere - there are no plans to challenge the constitutional power to pardon, and the Rich case is already under federal investigation in New York. But the headlines, as ever, are the thing.

   There are, however, some very serious issues at stake here. Last month the New York Times unearthed the role of another Hillary brother (Tony, this time) in yet another dubious pardon (of a pair of crooked Tennessee business buddies). That pardon, with the Rich pardon and that of McDougal, might easily provide the basis for a serious challenge to a presidential prerogative of which Clinton was far from the only abuser. But the only abuse practiced on Capitol Hill right now is an abuse of the laws of hypocrisy.

   At the start of the session Burton ensured that Beth Dozoretz, another rich and glamorous Clinton financial backer, had to take the Fifth Amendment in public. Had Burton allowed it, Dozoretz would not have needed to come and refuse to testify in front of the cameras. When Denise Rich pleaded the Fifth a couple of weeks earlier, she did so through her lawyers. Burton wasn't going to make the same public relations gaffe twice. This was pure partisan theatre.

   If this inquiry was serious, it would look at the way successive presidents have used the power to pardon in dubious ways. It might, for example, examine why George Bush Sr pardoned the disgraceful old pro-Soviet oil crook Armand Hammer after receiving two six-figure political donations from him. The appearance of a quid pro quo in the Hammer pardon is much more clear-cut than it is in the Rich case. But there was no inquiry into the Hammer pardon.

   If this were a serious inquiry into the abuse of pardons, it might usefully look at why Bush pardoned the Reagan administration defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, for his role in illegal Iran-Contra negotia tions - of which Bush Sr professed to be wholly ignorant. Here was a case of a pardon that may well have been given by a president to protect himself from exposure and investigation. In some ways that is a more serious abuse than any yet alleged against Clinton. Again, there was no inquiry.

   A serious inquiry might look at why in 1990 Bush Sr released a serial terrorist and anti-Castro killer, Orlando Bosch, who some people have implicated in the Washington assassination of the Chilean politician Orlando Letelier in the 1970s. There was serious pressure from Jeb Bush and rightwing Florida Cubans for the pardon. In 1989 Bosch was described by the acting attorney general as "resolute and unwavering in his advocacy of terrorist violence". The following year, courtesy of the Bush family, Bosch was released. No inquiry again.

   A serious inquiry might take up the issue of how Congressman Tom DeLay, the Republican majority whip, pressed the United States commerce department for special treatment for the Cemex cement company from Mexico. DeLay's brother Randy is a lobbyist for Cemex. Or it might look at why Senator Jesse Helms's private foundation received several large contributions from foreign governments when the North Carolina Republican became chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee.

    If Congress is genuinely interested in who gives money to presidential library funds - as the Burton committee is with Clinton library donors - you would think that the donor lists for the Bush Sr and Reagan libraries might be worth examining.

   Two wrongs do not make a right, and Clinton, in many respects, deserves what he is currently getting. Yet if the former president is truly so venal, then serious investigators should ask themselves why he gave a pardon to Rich and refused to give a pardon to the Wall Street financier Michael Milken, who mounted every bit as extravagant a pardon campaign as Rich did, without success. The answer, perhaps, is that Rich had the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, on his side. Or perhaps, as the tabloids claim, the answer lies in Clinton's bed. Either way, there has to be some rational explanation of Clinton's conduct. So far, though, it has not come out.

   "If we are going to talk about money in politics, then let's talk about money in politics," the independent Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders suggested during last week's Burton committee hearings. Yes, Clinton has been a rogue. He is being exposed for his roguery. He will continue to suffer for it and he will deserve it. But Clinton is not the only rogue in US politics. The Congress and the White House are both full of rogues who deserve to be exposed every bit as much as he does.

   About them, however, the TV talkshows and the tabloids remain almost entirely silent.

The Guardian Weekly 8-3-2001, page 6

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:10 PM

I like that story! What a tasteful alternative to the endless political wrangling of zealouts out to save us from ourselves.

Young Republicans on one side and Marxist-Leninists on the other...

What a horrifying juxtaposition of forces.

Pass me a sandwich...willya?

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 11:01 AM

That great pasture in the sky is 'way past your eyes. Past the tops of the trees, even.

Clydesdales sure am beautiful horses, bee'nt they?

Speaking of less filling tastes great, I have a great story to tell about that one.

On Mayday in 1984, I was at the University of Illinois, in the amphitheater, eating my lunch. The amphitheater was a popular lunch spot. The Young Republicans had signed up for the whole day at the amphitheater pulpit, knowing this would enrage the various communist/socialist/marxist/leninist groups, Mayday being their big holiday and all.

So the YR's had speaches going all day long, about 5 minutes each, they were taking turns. The c/s/m/l's were just about tearing their hair out, because they had expected to just waltz into the amphitheater and have the center of attention. Apparently nobody among them was smart enough to actually figure out what you had to do to get official permission to use the space. So they were off to one side, bickering and breaking into chants, and all that.

It was something of a cacophany. The YR's had a portable PA system and were blasting their rhetoric about free market economies and what-not, and the c/s/m/l's were chanting and cat-calling and making a nuisance of themselves.

Most of us were eating our lunch, enjoying the show. The cold war brought home, up close and personal like, better than Punch and Judy.

Somewhere in the midst of all this, a young man could be seen running back and forth, whispering in people's ears. He was talking to a lot of people around the rim of the amphitheater, for many minutes.

Suddenly the people he had been talking to started chanting, antiphonally,

Less Filling!

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

Tastes Great!

etc.

It was a scream. Both the YR's and the CSML's were upstaged, temporarily at least, and all of us lunch-munchers had a good laugh, and went on to our afternoon classes.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 07:21 AM

You don't think the Bud Clydesdale's earn their keep just doing commercials, do you ? I know it's my brand, but if I was a loyal NB'er, I'd be drinking Moosehead products, so, 6 of one....

Is this thread creep or did we get onto the finer points of tastes great-less filling because of the creep the thread's about ?

I'm sure there will be lot's of opportunities for the start of another "Bushwhacked" arising soon. This one appears dead. No sense flogging a dead horse. I wonder where the Clydesdales end up when the go to that great pasture in the sky ? or should that be pasteurized ?

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 06:19 PM

Actually, Alex, I agree entirely. Beer does smell like horse piss. I can't stand the stuff.

Stand by for retaliation from outraged hosers everywhere.

- Little Hawk (ducking and running)

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 11:04 AM

I never said i drank horse piss. Just that beer tastes like it. Having spent a lot of time in horse stables, and smelt a lot of horse piss, and knowing that taste is 90% smell, I think I'm qualified to make this comment.

Yes, BC, Oregon and Washington -- also known collectively as Ecotopia -- it's surely one of the planet's garden spots. Happy to live here.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 10:53 AM

Spaw... bowling balls ? I'm a good ol' Kent County boy. I assume there is a brand of bowling balls called Brunswick ? Rings a bell, but... In the metropolis of Three Miles in Back of Beyond, a suburb of East Overshoe, where you can still smell the pulp mill when it's downwind, bowling balls would just sink you deeper in the boglands, shrivelling the others.

LH... Re freedom, nevermind. It's better left alone.

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 10:19 AM

Yeah, BC is pretty much a paradise. Oregon and Washington are pretty cool too.

"sruffy" was a typo, but I think I like it. I meant "scruffy".

Budweiser "donates money to freedom"??? Meaning what? Whose freedom? I am highly suspicious of the whole premise...

Your typical Canadian hoser (like Blind Drunk in Blind River, for example) regards any brand of beer as a means of promoting his freedom to be an idiot, get noisy, destroy property, kill himself on a snowmobile, etc.

Alex - You say that beer tastes like "horse piss"? When did you start drinking horse piss? And why??? I think that you should cease this unhealthy habit forthwith, even if you are a Washingtonian. There are limits, after all...

I mean, look at how it affected Newt Gingrich! Bad stuff, Alex.

Noooobody in Canada would stoop so low as to drink horse piss, except possibly Don Cherry when he's trying to recover from a bad hangover...

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 06:32 PM

Our bird is the Willow goldfinch. Tree is the Coastal Rhododendron (grows wild in some parts -- quite pretty).

BC is a beautiful place. Vancouver, strong and proud sea port with a lovely backdrop of rugged mountains, is, to my jaundiced eye, the most beautiful city in the world. Too bad they talk funny there. Been boating many times in BC's coastal waters (well, the water between the mainland and the Island (vancouver island to the unknowing)).

Vancouver is a much more international city than Seattle. I love going up there just to see the fun stuff you can get in the shops.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 06:29 PM

WOW!!! I had no idea!!?!?!!! Gnu is in New Brunswick!! Or is that Gnu Brunswick? Whatever............Anyway, can you send us all new bowling balls? Our others are OK.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 06:18 PM

Ooops ! Mixed that up. Forgot you are in WA and not Oregon. What is the state animal of Washington ?

Here in NB, CAN, our "provincial" bird is the Black Capped Chickadee, known to some of us naturalists as Paris Atricapillus, which is latin for soothing song except the morning after St. Pat's.

As for BC, AKA, Lotus Land, I have no comment or knowledge, except that it's one of the places Maritimers go to make $$$ so they can come home and starve in their old age.

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 05:52 PM

Hey, LH: Sruffy? Is this a Canadianism I wasn't previously aware of?

Gnu, I'm not a beaver boy. I live in Warshington, which is just north of the Beaver State. Just south of British Columbia, which is neither (british nor columbian).

Actually if the truth be known I don't drink beer at all. Bleh. Tastes like horse piss.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 05:48 PM

Top notch stuff. I'll be looking for you guys in the threads from now on !

LH.... it didn't SEEM that obvious, but I am new to this banter between you and beaver boy. But, I will learn and, hopefully, contribute.

mousethief.... Molson's ? Even here in New Brunswick, where we celebrate the oldest independant brewery in Canada, some of us drink BUD, because it's the ONLY brewer ANYWHERE that actually donates money to freedom... God bless America.... in beer we trust !

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 01:41 PM

Oh yeah? Well, we've got all the beavers we can eat in Oregon, the beaver state. And our flag isn't a silly-assed maple leaf, for goodness' sake.

But you're spot-on on the stupid bird. Ben Franklin wanted the national bird to be the Turkey, which would make a lot more sense; every country in Europe wants to claim the eagle, going back to the Eastern Roman Empire (often called, by noodleheads, the Byzantine Empire) with its twin-headed eagle (which, incidentally, still flies over the monasteries of Mt. Athos, Greece!). Better a turkey, which tastes great and is less filling, than a carrion eater.

Gnu, bait all you want. Nice pun.

I figure the United Static of America and the Great Wilt North will be at each others' throats, in a friendly way, until the cows come home (and thenafter). If we can't have fun at it, we're all the poorer.

Love you canucks. Save me a Molson's.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 01:24 PM

Mousethief - I am surprised that any of my fellow Canadians would have taken offense at your obviously silly post. Go ahead and take all the cheap shots you want. We've still got the beaver as a national symbol, and you guys don't. You've just got that sruffy, old carron-eater, the (prematurely) bald eagle. So...Na na na na na...na! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 11:35 AM

Mousethief... I like "Don't Eat the Bait". I'll be using that one first chance I get. No offense taken and I assume the same goes for you. Unfortunately, I didn't have anything else to do at the time but bait you, pun intended.

LOLgnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Mar 01 - 11:27 AM

The difference between me and ye is that I have something else to do on the weekends.

If you Canucks would stop eating your bait and use it to catch fish instead, you'd be better fed and your breath would smell better.

I was just taking a cheap shot at Little Hawk, not out of malice but out of silliness. If I offended anybody, tough shorts. Y'all up there in the Maple Leaf State are too uptight anyway.

Alex

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 05:09 PM

RATS!!!having a bad day.CLICK HERE

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 05:05 PM

What a surprise......

Read My Lips: A Look at Coal Mining Industry Contributions to Bush and the GOP

After weeks of lukewarm praise from environmental groups, President Bush today came under fire for reversing a campaign pledge to regulate power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide -- a decision that stands to benefit major contributors to Bush's presidential campaign and the Republican Party....

Yesterday's decision was a major victory for the coal mining industry and its allies in Congress, who for years have fought against proposals to regulate such emissions under the Clean Air Act.

During the 1999-2000 election cycle, the coal mining industry contributed more than $3.8 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal parties and candidates, with the dollars going almost entirely to Republicans. That's more than three times what the industry gave during 1995-96, the last presidential election cycle.

More information http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_11.asp> HERE

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Skeptic
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 04:21 PM

Dear Mav,

Yes, but I'm better looking.

Which isn't saying much, believe me.

s "cost" language is propaganda in itself from the liberals (of either side) which implies that the money belongs to the BLEEPING government.

Where did the money come from, who created the wealth and who confiscated it?

Well, $4 trillion of it didn't come from us, it came from borrowing. And we all benefitted from it, directly or indirectly. Arguably, we proved it was possible to borrow your way out of a recession. It's now time to pay the piper. But no one wants to. They want taxes reduced. I'm sorry but the "cost" is a continued deficit, hundreds of billions in interest payments and no end in sight. Just that somehow (if we close our eyes and wish real hard) it will all go away. This isn't about blame, but reality. The reality is that the reduction in taxes are based on the assumption that the economy will continue to expand. If that isn't true, the borrowing starts again.

Cost was, in retrospect, a poor choice of words (not that I was wrong, of course, just not as careful as I should have been in choosing words.)

They never were concerned how much their wasteful spending practices would "cost" the taxpayers.

Neither were, or are, the taxpayers apparently.

The deficit came as a result of explosive spending (a double cross by the democrat congress) not a lessing of revenue (revenue at least doubled after the Reagan tax cut)

Of sorts: Under Reagan, this is what happened: (From 1980 to 1986 when the deficit skyrocketed - as a % of Gross Domestic product))

Domestic appropriations declined 1.4% (these would be the democrats favorite programs, btw). All other non defense spending: Declined .2% - more decreases Non-income tax revenues (the payroll taxes you and I pay) rose by .5% - this increased revenues. Most payroll taxes are paid by the working and middle class. These are the same taxes that Bush overlooked in his tax cut proposals.

Defense Spending increased by 1.3% Personal and corporate income taxes (the bulk of personal income tax is paid by the rich) declined by 2% (which means less money coming in) Interest on the National Debt increased grew by 1.2% (as we borrowed more money) Lets see, defense spending and income tax relief were Reagan's programs. (BTW, even Stockman admitted the corporate cuts got out of hand to the point of being characterized by him as a "greed fest")

Sorry. Reagan demanded and got increased defense spending and lower corporate and income taxes (off set in part by higher payroll taxes). Plus the democrats reduced domestic spending. I don't see where they did anything to increase the deficit other than give Reagan what he wanted.

I will not get into the greenhouse effect. It is something only time will tell and I've got land in the NC mountains. Unless the CO2 levels outpace the ability of plants to process it, of course.

I resolve to practice holding my breath for long periods of time, just in case.

On a positive note for republicans, if Global Warming is real and continues, Florida well end up under-water so no one will have to worry about under-votes and chads.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: MAV
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:25 PM

Dear Skeptic,

"Of course, Mav is still wrong and I'm right but that goes without saying :-)"

Yes, but I'm better looking.

"Pre-election - Cost of Tax Cut is $1 trillion, from W)......After Election - Cost of Tax Cut now $1.6 trillion......As sent to and passed by House (per request of W)- Cost of tax cut"

Skeptic, Skeptic, Skeptic, tsk, tsk, tsk, "Cost of Tax Cut"????

This "cost" language is propaganda in itself from the liberals (of either side) which implies that the money belongs to the BLEEPING government.

Where did the money come from, who created the wealth and who confiscated it?

Just because the government printed it doesn't make it theirs, it just represents wealth in the form of the US medium of exchange.

They never were concerned how much their wasteful spending practices would "cost" the taxpayers.

"Last big tax cut (Reagan) they ended up with the lions share and we ended up with a deficit"

The "lions share" should logically and morally be returned to those it came from.

The deficit came as a result of explosive spending (a double cross by the democrat congress) not a lessing of revenue (revenue at least doubled after the Reagan tax cut)

*******************************************************

"What is true is that the amount of "greenhouse gases" have been rising. This month's Nature has an article about same, based on satellite spectroscopy"

I've never disputed that fact nor that global temperatures may be rising.

My position is (from basic physics and not my own opinion) that tons of CO2 are dissolved in the oceans, and that as global temperatures rise (due to solar cycles), the water can not continue to hold the dissolved gas, so it returns as atmospheric CO2.

All that remains is to determine whether the gases really do have a greenhouse effect. Which ought to be demonstrated, one way or another, in the next couple of years.

Global warming means mostly elevated overnight temperatures. Given that element and the greater percentage of CO2 means explosive plant (food and forest) growth, a GREENER and more livable environment.(basic biology, plants turn CO2 back into Oxygen)

I believe it was the "bio-sphere" experiments where this temperature/CO2 relationship was shown.

"The question is, just how far under water does Times Square need to get before it isn't junk science? :-)"

You didn't really think I was going to shed a tear over that one did you? HA! (good one)

From the land of 1000 shuffles,

mav out

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: MAV
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 01:30 PM

Dear gnu,

"In the US election, there was one issue that was the ONLY IMPORTANT issue, and it wasn't an issue.... Campaign finance reform"

That is correct, it WASN'T an issue.

It ranked about 27th on the voter's radar screen by poll.

If you look it up (opensecrets.org or tray) you will find that corporations gave only slightly more to the GOP than to the dems.

Labor unions gave exclusively to the dems.

Most government workers are union, they are payed by taxpayers, the unions then extort money from the workers and give it to the DNC.

NICE ARRANGEMENT HUH???????

"It seems that the US political system has many Yanks ( Americans takes too long to type ) upset"

Upsetting mostly those caught trying to thwart it. (the dimpled chad frauds)

"It should upset you"

What would really upset me, would be the government forcing me to fund a campaign I was opposed to, through public funding.

Let the various contributers be disclosed on the internet(like W did) and let them give unlimited amounts.

The American public now spends more money on Halloween candy.

"In the end, it means not one man, one vote - it means one dollar, one vote"

That is a false premise, if it were true, Steve Forbes or Donald Trump would be president.

That's like saying speed kills. (ever flown on an jetliner, did you die?)

"And we all know that's not REALLY right"

Not only that, it's not true.

"However, you can either vote for Ralph or make the two established parties reform the system so that it really is OF, FOR, and BY the people"

That's by, for and of.

See the massive and numerous red areas of the Y2K election map, here's where you'll find "the people", not in the whacked out/high crime/voter fraud blue areas.

Thank you Ralph for helping clinton deliver the country into the hands of the GOP, we never could have done it without you. Will you help us again in the next election cycle?

"Alex....was ...to hear your comments on Canuck politics. At least, I assume that's what you meant, although you said, "If we have to talk about Canadians....". Whasssamatter, 'Cat got your tongue?"

Ha ha ha ha ha, NO COMMENT!!!!!

Long live Canada!

mav out

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Skeptic
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 01:24 PM

Naemanson

I do have to agree with Mav. Five, six seven and eight were more give and take, less posturing.

Of course, Mav is still wrong and I'm right but that goes without saying :-)

Soemwhere in there I think Little Hawk let slip about the leftist liberal plot to take over the world but no one will believe it so we're all safe.

And on to reality (scary as it is)

Tax Cut Update:

Pre-election - Cost of Tax Cut is $1 trillion, medicare and social security trust funds will be preserved. (This from W)

After Election - Cost of Tax Cut now $1.6 trillion. funds still preserbed. (Also from W)

As sent to and passed by House (per request of W)- Cost of tax cut is now $2.5 trillion and the medicare trust fund is up for grabs.

And Big Business hasn't even started heavy duty lobbying yet. Last big tax cut (Reagan) they ended up with the lions share and we ended up with a deficit.

Let me guess, its like some cheap "B" grade 50's horror flic: The Return of Voodoo Economics

Except it ain't cheap.

Mav,

What is true is that the amount of "greenhouse gases" have been rising. This month's Nature has an article about same, based on satellite spectroscopy.

All that remains is to determine whether the gases really do have a greenhouse effect. Which ought to be demonstrated, one way or another, in the next couple of years.

The question is, just how far under water does Times Square need to get before it isn't junk science? :-)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: MAV
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 12:53 PM

Dear Naemanson,

"OK, I have read Bushwhacked one, two, and three. I am funing and I cannot stand to read any more"

What about four, five, six, seven and eight???

"It is obvious that the conservatives in office and those who support them have no good basis for their statements"

Besides the obvious thieving, self serving federal union thug bureaucracy, which does not help the citizens, what facts would you like revealed??

"they take things out of context, they ignore facts when convenient, they rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and junk statistics"

You mean like CO2 is causing global warming? Oh, wait, that's your junk science.

Like the rain forest is disappearing at the rate of a football field a minute from five or ten years ago? Oh, wait, it's all still there, see satellite photos.

Like freon is depleting the ozone? Oh, wait, Dupont's patent ran out. No proof.

"I found it was very disturbing to read the posts and not be able to add my two cents worth"

Add away, use all the paper you need.

"For a while I was writing some responses to file here when I got to the end but then I realized that I would just fire up the arguments again"

What's wrong with debate? You have something against verbal mud(cat)wrestling?

"and that would do no good"

That depends on the strength of your argument.

"Nobody is going to change anyone's mind"

Maybe it will, maybe it won't, lots of people simply read these posts and are influenced by the discussion and exercise their opinion when they vote.

"All we can do is pray that the conservatives leave something for our children when they need it"

We were hoping to leave them the same country given to us by our fathers, not some basterdized European Socialist Clone.

Thanks for the prayers, we need all the help we can get.

With all due respect,

mav out

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 08:36 AM

Spaw... Hey we're all sorry about that.

sloooowwwgnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: psyco
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:20 AM

i think we`ve all missed the point it isnt about parties or even morals anymore its about lawyers&money period

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 01:29 AM

And don't forget William Shatner! Thanks gnu!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 01:14 AM

Just read my last post and it appears that St. Pat's celebrations / libations must now cease for this here Canucky. Actually, it appears from the tone of my keyboard that they should have ceased a while ago. Apologies if I have offended any of my American friends.

Even though CAN is part of the largest military force on the earth, we would never think of supporting the British Empire in any endeavour without checking with you Yanks first. Polite as hell we are ! Well, there was that little skirmish back in 1812. Sorry about your capitol building - honest mistake. The boys just got kind of whooped up and all, you know. Oh yeah, we just plain forgot in 1914...honest. 1939 ? Well, I dunno, I guess we just got a little impatient after the first big one.

Geeze, when you think of it, it almost sounds like we're just tearin' for a scrap. Ain't so. We didn't jump right in when Korea took off. Oops, shouldn't have mentioned that one. But you would have thought we'd have got on the bandwagon in Vietnam. After all, them phosphorus mines and cheap labour were pretty important to the safety and security of the free world. Why else would the French have fought a war there for two hundred and fifty years ? I suppose we should have at least sent some interpreters there so's you lads could've understood what the french specking VC were trying to intimate to you.

In the end, though, together, we did battle train a fair amount of our troops and field test a fair amount of our weapons in Nam, which allows us to be strong and free. BTW, you're more than welcome for all the technology we supplied you during those Asian wars, er, military actions, er, policing actions, er, humanitarian actions, er, stop the spread of communism actions, er...? Not the least of which was the Avro Arrow, forerunner of the nuclear juiced 104 Starfighter, and predecessor to many of your top performers, like the the F-4 Phanthom, a big hit with the VC - poor, sick, twisted pun intended.

But I digress. The original question, or rather answer, to which we have no question yet, will be addressed by Alex in due time. I look forward to understanding his muse, "If we have to talk about Canadians, we might as well not have any political threads at all."

Oh, BTW, the reason we have been voted best country to live in five years in a row is because of a combination of caring for each other and because of our British Parliamentary system which allows us to make decisions within a reasonable fucking timetable.

Ice ax ? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING ICE AXES.

Apoliticalgnu

gnight !

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 11:42 PM

Nah Spaw. Us Canucks don't take politikin' serious like. An' we like to hear other peoples' opinions of us in general, so's we can more truly evaluate our flaws, Spaw.

It's constructive critics that help us maintain our five year in a row record being voted the best country in the world to live in. Now, some might say that's because we got the best parking space in the world lot - you can do the math on that one. And I agree. Here's one Canuck who will stand up and say, "God Bless America."

But don't get pissy....we are LEGALLY part of the largest military force on the earth.

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 11:30 PM

Alex, I believe you have the Canadian contingent waiting with "baited breath" and perhaps the odd ice ax here and there.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Naemanson
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 11:28 PM

Campaign Finance Reform is an issue that will never be addressed. The politicians of both sides will make a lot of mouth music about it but no one will ever do anything meaningful until they can make it favor their side.

Money is the life blood of politics. There is no chance that either party will ever do anything to jeopardize that.

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 11:08 PM

Alex....was anxious after my long break of watching Celtic music on Bravo TV to hear your comments on Canuck politics. At least, I assume that's what you meant, although you said, "If we have to talk about Canadians....". Whasssamatter, 'Cat got your tongue ?

baitedgnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 09:52 PM

Yep. As long as BIG money runs the party system, the public is disenfranchised every time...

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 07:01 PM

Well, praying won't do any good because what we need to do all around the world is vote. When over half or the electorate doesn't vote, it kind of screws things up, doesn't it ?

In the US election, there was one issue that was the ONLY IMPORTANT issue, and it wasn't an issue.... Campaign finance reform. It seems that the US political system has many Yanks ( Americans takes too long to type ) upset. It should upset you. In the end, it means not one man, one vote - it means one dollar, one vote. And we all know that's not REALLY right. However, you can either vote for Ralph or make the two established parties reform the system so that it really is OF, FOR, and BY the people.

You have less tahn four years and the rest of the world is counting on you. Get busy !!!!

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Naemanson
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 06:46 PM

OK, I have read Bushwhacked one, two, and three. I am funing and I cannot stand to read any more. It is obvious that the conservatives in office and those who support them have no good basis for their statements. they take things out of context, they ignore facts when convenient, they rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and junk statistics.

I found it was very disturbing to read the posts and not be able to add my two cents worth. For a while I was writing some responses to file here when I got to the end but then I realized that I would just fire up the arguments again and that would do no good. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

All we can do is pray that the conservatives leave something for our children when they need it.

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 06:03 PM

It's not "which" Joe. It's "who" Joe.

BTW LH, Joe was one of the few politicians in history who belived that what he was doing was sooooo right that he knew it was going to be the death of his government but did it anyway. Whether that's just plain stupid or not, he had(s) balls big as any politician ever. BBTW, I never agreed with his politics, but admired his... er, tenacity.

Alex... clarify...please. We here in the frozen white north await your words of wisdom with baited breath.

gnu

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 05:28 PM

John - the Joe Clark I am referring to is a former prime minister (very briefly) of Canada, and the present leader of the nearly defunct Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He is a figure who has been mercilessly ridiculed througout most of his career by the press and some of the public. Seems like a nice person to me, but his political ground is shaky, to say the least. He's still hanging in there, but for how much longer is the question.

Alex - you said: "If we have to talk about Canadians, we might as well not have any political threads at all."

That, sir, is either an insult...or a bold new idea about how we could revamp the Mudcat and improve it.

I don't know whether to demand satisfaction...or compliment you on your imaginative brilliance and innovative approach.

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Skeptic
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 08:13 AM

LH,

So many incompetent politicians (Is that redundant?), so little time.

Which Joe Clark? There's one that's a hot topic on a local forum?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: raredance
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 12:30 AM

JFK was talking about reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 93% (as established by the Eisenhower administration) to 72%. So to honestly use JFK's quote the Republicans should be stumping for a 72% top rate not 33 or whatever they are proposing.

You can also reduce CO2 emmisions (as opposed to CO2 production) by removing it from the combustion products before you set them free. Doesn't work too well with a campfire but can be effective for large point sources such as power plants.

Commercial airlines are limited in the amount of dry ice (i.e. frozen CO2) they can carry and the packages have to be conspciuously labled. Since CO2 isn't flammable or explosive there must be some other reason. O, yes, too much CO2 in the cabin could casue the passengers or crew to black out with potentially fatal consequences.

Clinton lied about his personal picadellos. The republicans lie about public policy. That's why the republicans are restoring honor to the oval office.

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: MAV
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:42 PM

Flunked Economics didn't he?

mav out

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:00 PM

If we have to talk about Canadians, we might as well not have any political threads at all.

Crumbling schools will certainly be fixed buy taking money away from them, as George W. Ceaucescu's voucher plan plans to do. Er-yup.

The economy is going in the tank. Very real potential result: record government income levels drop drastically. George W. Khan's proposed solution: huge tax cuts. Result which follows as surely as the night follows the day: deficit spending.

Don't say I didn't tell you in advance.

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 08:09 PM

You shock me, John! Why, Brian Mulroney is simply the most hated Conservative prime minister in the history of Canada. He also had the largest chin ever to walk into the Canadian parliament buildings. I should think you Americans would love talking about him.

Here are some other really cool Canadians to yak on about into the wee hours:

Pierre Trudeau (the closest thing to a homegrown constitutional monarch that this country has ever had.)

Eddie Shack (hockey player)

Don Cherry (hockey commentator and ex-player)

Don Cherry's dog

Joe Clark

Barbara Amiel

Conrad Black

Rosie DiManno

Mel Lastman

and ...BIG FANFARE... MIKE HARRIS!!! (Mr. "Common Sense") the current reigning despot of Ontario.

It's sad to see you all endlessly wrangling about G.W. when Canada has so much to offer... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Skeptic
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 08:01 PM

Mav

I'd take the CO2 thank you very much.

It isn't an either/or. And the problem is not that there are completely natural sources of CO2 but that we are artificially, and significantly, increasing the amounts. At issue (even for the utilities and cvola industry) is not whether they will cause a problem but rather is the problem serious enough yet to warrant action. The danger is that if it is a problem, by the time it becomes apparent, it may take draconian measures. (Which industry will expect the government to pay for, of course). Or may not be reversible.

And while hydrogen fuel cells or fusion reactors may be the answer, the best guest for when the might be available is: sometimes in the unspecified future. They might appear tomorrow. They may never appear. The question is, which side do we err on. The ?reversal? indicates we err on the side of profits.

To your litany of the problems of the past, please add real income that has lagged real cost of living by 25%. A shift in income distribution to the left of the bell curve. And. of course a 6.2 trillion dollar deficit. (Did you know that spending on social services as a % of GDP declined and payroll taxes rose under Reagan? Defense rose and personal and corporate income taxes fell).

You were supposed to respond to the "Reagan the deficit President" thing. If you're not going to take bait when generously offered the debate is doomed to civility. I so disappointed. :-)

Troll by way of Mousethief

I beg to explain and differ. If the (supposed liberal) media is to be believed>

Democratic doublespeak is deliberately lying and misleading the public.

Republican doublespeak is a reversal of position based on a careful review of relevant facts.* Please pay closer attention in the future.

LH,

Brian who? What teams he on? :-)

Regards

John

* Unmentioned is that the facts being ibnvestigated are: (1) the effect on cabinet officers stock portfolios and (2) How much the affected industry donated to the campaign.

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 07:36 PM

Does anyone want to discuss Brian Mulroney?

- LH

Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
From: MAV
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 07:28 PM

Dear Skeptic,

Thank you for the welcome, I had to sleep in after that great welcome thread.

"It doesn't matter if it's the coal industry (in the case of CO2 emission)"

It doesn't matter what you burn, if it has carbon in it ( natural gas or a tofu-burger) it will produce CO2 (the chemical reaction between carbon and oxygen).

Hydrogen would be the likely alternative which produces only water when burned, but CO2 is as common and natural as free oxygen and nitrogen. Plants have to have it and in turn give off Oxygen.

Let's ask some of our friends in the West including California if they want to forget having electric power until Hydrogen power production can be developed (maybe 20-30 years). Perhaps they would like some nice NUKES!!!

I'd take the CO2 thank you very much.

News report on right now about the inevitable blackouts in CA, "Power Police" patrolling businesses looking for wasteful energy usage. Expect AC loads in hot weather to cause killer outages, RIOTS! RIOTS! RIOTS!

*******************************************************

" 'After clinton, even Bozo the Chimp would be an improvement...None of the above" would be an improvement...Since the ds don't have a leader or an alternative candidate, you're stuck with W' "

"That's right. Rub it in. Gloat. I'd even say that he who laughs last laughs best"

OK, I'm sorry, but thanks for granting me that.

"the sad truth seems to be that democrat or republican, conservative, moderate or liberal, who ends up getting screwed is we, the people"

Well, since we haven't had a GOP government in about 40 years, or a conservative government for longer than that (including now), I think we need to give them a chance to perform, the alternative party has been in practice for the same period of time and their same issues are unresolved.

We still have poverty, drugs, unwed teen mothers, unbridled illegal immigration, street gangs, dismal performance in public education, decrepit schools and other infrastructure.

The only improvement I will concede is progress in environmental areas, but there is more to do in some cases and overkill in others.

*******************************************************

"You reduce CO2 emissions by burning less. Duh"

Let's make it against the law for volcanos to erupt and arrest those responsible for those massive forest fires last summer in the West! Oh wait, that was the clinton environmental policy in action...BURN BABY BURN!!!!

Then there's the self-righteous snotty Hollywood politically correct types burning TONS of RAW GASOLINE every day for their stupid phoney uncredible special effects, constantly belching huge clouds of ACRID BLACK SMOKE into the POLLUTED LOS ANGELES AIR!!!!!

Beam me up Mr. Speaker!

mav out