 sj |
||
|
||
BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE
|
|
|
Subject: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: GUEST Date: 14 Mar 01 - 07:15 AM Liar, Liar!! WASHINGTON 3/13/01-- President Bush has decided not to seek reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation's power plants, reversing himself on a campaign pledge after encountering strong resistance from the coal and oil industries and from Republican allies on Capitol Hill. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Jim the Bart Date: 14 Mar 01 - 09:51 AM I heard this today on NPR. It seems he has concluded that his position on CO2 during the campaign was a "mistake" and "not consistant with his other positions", specifically on providing cheap energy. They went on to say that environmentalists are "dismayed". Really? Well, so much for Bush's "what you see is what you get" facade. What a fakir - a snake charmer, minus the charm. In a related story, it appears that the Republicans are using footage of JFK (yes, he of the villified clan Kennedy)touting his tax cut in '63 as support for Bush's tax cut plan in '01. These guys have b*lls of brass. Bart out |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Mar 01 - 10:08 AM .............and you were expecting......what??? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Mar 01 - 10:11 AM BTW, I appreciate your thread title in regards to all the previous "Bushwhacked" threads, but I'd submit this action on dumbya's part is not an encore, but a prelude. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Mar 01 - 10:31 AM Uh, huh. Show me an American president who hasn't lied. Well, maybe Jimmy Carter...maybe. It's the same story up here in Canada. First you work on winning an election, and promise the public anything you think will bring you that result. Then you get elected (maybe). Then you start dealing with reality...and pressure from the established interests that got you elected (by funding you) in the first place. And so it goes. Nothing new here. I remember that Robert Redford movie where he ran an uphill campaign for a senatorial seat. It was called "The Candidate". He was not expected to win, but fought a very good campaign and astonished even himself by actually winning it on election day, defeating a long-time Republican incumbent. In the process he considerably lost his integrity, and said many things he would not have necessarily wanted to say, but that was all part of the game. In the last scene he looks around helplessly at his advisors, who are celebrating the win, and says, "What now?" What now, indeed...? Expect many promises to be broken. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 14 Mar 01 - 11:11 AM It's not that we have a president who lied. It's that we have a president who lied to the left and told the truth to the right. I mean, Clinton lied to everyone. Except Monica, whom he lied with. I mean lay with. Whatever. But President George W. Mussolini came across as Mr. Compassionate Conservative, and as it turns out, he's Mr. Heartless Fascist just like we liberal types were saying all along. When space aliens find the smoldering ashes of our planet, they will search through the rubble and say, "Ah. This planet was destroyed by the greed, duplicity, vileness, and stupidity of somebody named George W. Bush." Don't say we didn't warn you. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Mar 01 - 11:26 AM I'd like to be on the record stating unequivocally that I have not said 'encore'. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: katlaughing Date: 14 Mar 01 - 12:23 PM It's Resident Shrub, guys!**BG** This month's Glen Canyon Institute's newsletter uses a quote as a subtle statement concerning the shrub:
While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. I can only hope that Lincoln is right. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 14 Mar 01 - 01:08 PM What does it matter if he is? He says "if the people maintain their virtue and vigilance" and we haven't had either of those qualities in our electorate for over 100 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Jim the Bart Date: 14 Mar 01 - 02:07 PM One of my goals is to make sure that it is just four years. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: katlaughing Date: 14 Mar 01 - 02:12 PM MT, I took it to me we the people and hopefully enough us will exhibit those qualities. I am with you on that, Bart...hell I think even the shrub is with ya on that one, unwittingly, true, but he's there...I am telling you! |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 14 Mar 01 - 02:15 PM My point, Kat, is that if we were maintaining our vigilance, George W. Marcos would never have been elected in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Skeptic Date: 14 Mar 01 - 03:26 PM Spaw, Prelude? A little class please. Remember your Shakespeare. "What's past is prologue" In this case, the prologue is Texas. His agenda is clear. Big business must be right because they make money. And they make money because they're right. (And Right). If they weren't right, God wouldn't reward them by letting them make all that money. Anyone who in any way limits big business in its pursuit of obscene profits is going against the will of the Almighty and must therefore be a tool of Satan and un-American besides.* It only hurts when you think outside the box. But I'm sure there's a plan to take care of that too. Regards John *No, not a quote from mav or even a mav clone. A summation of a rant on a local talk radio program. It plays real well in the blue areas, apparently, lots of call-ins to agree that the liberals were trying to destroy big business. And I thought we were doing such a good job of keeping it quiet. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Mar 01 - 03:56 PM George Bush isn't big enough to destroy this planet. Bigger men than he have already tried. Nonetheless, Alex, I get your point. My guess is that the planet will have the last laugh. As for us poor peons, well, that's a different story. I may just decide to incarnate somewhere else next time... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Greg F. Date: 14 Mar 01 - 04:11 PM Ooops, sorry! Wasn't supposed to be Guest A. Nonny Mouse, but Guest-Greg F. from non-home computer this morning. But if ya don't type something in the box, sonofagun, she don' print nuthin! Kat, poor old Abe- probably a good thing he's not around to see this. He'd be upset about the way his support of the inherent common sense of the common man has played out this time.... ;-) John, are you SURE it wasn't MAV that called in on that radio show? Or maybe he has a brother.....[shudder :-O
Glad to see Dubya "restoring honor and intergity" and all that great stuff...jus' like he said.
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: gnu Date: 14 Mar 01 - 04:14 PM A Canadian news spoof TV show out of Halifax sent a correspondant to the campaign trail in mid fall 2000. This fellow caught Georgie boy betwen a podium and his exit. I don't have the text, but essentially, he said the Canadian Prime Minister endorsed him as the man to lead the world into the next century. However, the name he used, a few times, for his Right Honourable, was an OBVIOUSLY contrived, nonsensical name. Dubbya gave thanks and pointed out that you Americans are very close to us Canadians, have always had a good relationship and that he looked forward to working with Mr. "HE REPEATED THE ABSURD NAME !!!!". I, as a Canadian, laughed for just a milisecond and then gasped, becasue I knew, at that moment, that he would win. At that point, I knew there was something rotten in the State of Texas. The only reason you put someone in charge who doesn't have a clue is so that he will do what he is told. Anyway, I'm an outsider so I'll just shut up about it. We have lots of our own political scandals to deal with. But, if you want to buy some high tech equipment for counting votes with some degree of accuracy, or need some instructions on how to keep the press out of deciding an election, we've got lots we don't relly need, what with our present monarchy and all. Good luck, you're gonna need it. See you in Iraq !!! gnu |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 14 Mar 01 - 04:31 PM Obviously "honor and dignity" only applies to keeping promises made to the Right. Either that or George W. Duvalier has less "honor and dignity" than was previously admitted. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Skeptic Date: 14 Mar 01 - 08:32 PM Time for a reality check. The man is a politician. He shares the following in common with most politicians 1. He can't hold a real job. 2. He will lie when the truth will suit better. 3. He has no shame. 4. His principals are a matter of convenience, not conviction. 5. He can run really fast. That way, once he figures out which way the crowds going, he can get in front and pretend to be a leader. 6. He is deathly afraid of a non-apathetic public that is politically involved. 7. These days, he can do real harm in less than four years. 8. And he will. But only for our own good. Pogo had it right. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Harold W Date: 14 Mar 01 - 08:40 PM I think I remember from chemistry class burning hydrocarbons (coal, natural gas, and oil) produces two biproducts, water and carbon dioxide. I fail to see how you can lower the carbon dioxide emissions. If you are talking about carbon monoxide, that's a different matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: MAV Date: 15 Mar 01 - 12:29 AM Stop Calling Him Stupid By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, March 13, 2001
Memo to George W. Bush's opponents: Now is the time for a moratorium on calling the president of the United States stupid.
Superduper lib-ster from the Wash Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60330-2001Mar12.html
No, wait! Maybe you shouldn't read it. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: The Crazy Bird Date: 15 Mar 01 - 05:09 AM Uh, mebbe we shudda named the thread: BushWhacked -- hard core gnu was talking about the "absurd name" the hoax interviewer used on G -- I think it was a french term for french-fries covered with melted cheese, forget where I heard that. But hey, wait! He's gonna save the economy with a trillion dolla tax-cut, so mebbe he's as smart as Reagan. Why doesn't anybody ever mention his ties? I think they always match his suit so nice. crzybrd |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Skeptic Date: 15 Mar 01 - 06:53 AM Mav, Too late, I read it. You don't think the appearance of being not quite the brightest star in the heavens could be an act designed to convince people he's really just a good old boy? One of the common crowd who just happens to be worth millions, who went to exclusive schools, tends to associate with "the right sort" but all in all is just a populist in an Armani suit? Why, that would mean he's *gasp* telling lies. I am Soooooooooooooo shocked. Maybe it's some wierd form of sick builiding syndrome that affects the air at the White House. I mean, the building is old. Who knows what bizzare virus might lurk in some forgotten airshaft. Or maybe the liberal media isn't really all that liberal and just didn't bother to highlight these little facets of his personality. That would be in keeping with the politics of the owners, anyway. I understand investor's portfolios lost something like $4 trillion dollars in less than a week. Not bad for less than 100 days in office* On a more historical note, his statement of confidence in the the economy sounds a lot like Hoover's pronoucements in 1928. And, as always, none of it's W's fault. Why the side swipes by Cheney and others a Colin Powell, btw. Trouble in paradise? Or the internal disagreement about the reversal on the CO2 issue. It's really a little early for that sort of thing. Maybe besides not reading/listening to briefings, he isn't bothering to keep some of his cabinet updated on the latest policy changes. Busy man, with no time for details like actually being a chief executive. Being a figurehead is so much easier, so much more in keeping with his former jobs. Regards John *Yeah, I know its really the Republican Congress to blame. But like I said earlier, one good recession and its 40 years of democratic control. Time to start stocking up on freeze dried food. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Jim the Bart Date: 15 Mar 01 - 02:31 PM I personally believe that GW is a classic example of undeveloped potential. He has good genes, he had a good upbringing, he simply waited a long time to find himself. My guess is that he never cared to study much and got by on native intellect, charm and the family name. Not unlike many other offspring of the privileged classes throughout history. It's too facile to say he's "stupid". Maybe he's not an "intellectual", but that's hardly necessary in a public servant. He is obviously savvy enough to put himself in a position where his most positive traits will pay off (that native intellect, charm and family name that I mentioned above). What I have yet to see is a clear indication of his character. His father seemed to be a decent man who associated with bad company (the CIA, amongst others). Whether George W. is going to be controlled by his handlers or vice versa is still an open question. He has made some questionable choices - ethically if not politically - up to this point in his appointments and regarding his policy priorities, but we'll have to see how some of them play out. I am not optimistic. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Naemanson Date: 15 Mar 01 - 09:19 PM I didn't bother to read the original thread when this got started. I thought to myself, I have enough trouble without pushing the blood pressure up over the jerk from Texas. Then I started to hear the decisions being made by our illustrious leader and I finally relented only to find that you guys have run this thing out to hundreds of posts and 8 or 9 threads! And I intend to read each and every one of them! I should be really fuming by the time I get back to this spot. I need to see how the conservatives among us justify Dubya's actions. Plus I've seen references to the flames going on in these threads. I guess I'll amble over to the highway and watch the ambulance haul off the bodies. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: truprice Date: 15 Mar 01 - 10:47 PM Read my lips: The purpose of campaign promises is to get elected. (Especially true of the Bush gang). For the Bush gang, the purpose of laws is to keep the masses in check. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: MAV Date: 15 Mar 01 - 11:41 PM Dear Skeptic, "You don't think the appearance of being not quite the brightest star in the heavens could be an act designed to convince people he's really just a good old boy? One of the common crowd who just happens to be worth millions, who went to exclusive schools, tends to associate with "the right sort" but all in all is just a populist in an Armani suit?"
Yes.
"Why, that would mean he's *gasp* telling lies"
Not really. What do you think a rich Texan is supposed to be like?
He's just going with the rule that "perception is everything"
"I understand investor's portfolios lost something like $4 trillion dollars in less than a week. Not bad for less than 100 days in office*"
Well it's been going on for about 9 months. We like to call it "THE CLINTON RECESSION".
"And, as always, none of it's W's fault"
Well no, how could it be?
"about the reversal on the CO2 issue. It's really a little early for that sort of thing"
Personally I could care less if California did fall into the ocean, but there is a serious regional threat of massive power shortages out there when air condidioning season starts.
CO2 is not a toxic gas. We exhale it, plants consume it and produce O2.
I'm glad he reversed himself. They can't even prove CO2 has any real effect on global temperatures.
It is possible that global warming is causing the oceans to release CO2 as they also warm up. This would more likely be the case.
"Maybe besides not reading/listening to briefings, he isn't bothering to keep some of his cabinet updated on the latest policy changes. Busy man, with no time for details like actually being a chief executive. Being a figurehead is so much easier, so much more in keeping with his former jobs" ?
Don't care, he has an astronomical job ahead of him and good people to help him succeed.
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.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Ebbie Date: 15 Mar 01 - 11:58 PM Here's an interesting editorial: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ipms/20010315/cm/demonstrably_wrong_1.html |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Mar 01 - 12:18 AM If any of you are growing weary of the fray, I could always launch "Gobsmacked - volume 2". Premise of the thread: you can talk about anything political you want as long as it has nothing to do with Bush, Gore, Florida, or the USA. No? Well, it was just a suggestion...geez. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Skeptic Date: 16 Mar 01 - 07:41 AM LH, And just when it was getting minimally civil? :-) Ebbie, Great Article. And lets not forget the Panama Canal (On time and under budget), Hoover Damn, the Blue Ridge Parkway ....... Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:15 AM Harold, You reduce CO2 emissions by burning less. Duh. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Skeptic Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:21 AM Dear Mav Not really. What do you think a rich Texan is supposed to be like? He's just going with the rule that "perception is everything" Clearly the triumph of style (of sorts) over substance. Well it's been going on for about 9 months. We like to call it "THE CLINTON RECESSION". No, no. It's perception, not facts. Way back in one of the Bushwhacked threads I explained it all. Bush gets blamed for the recession and ushers in 40 years of democratic control. And if you get to call it the Clinton Recession, I get to call it the Reagan deficit. So there. Personally I could care less if California did fall into the ocean, but there is a serious regional threat of massive power shortages out there when air condidioning season starts. CO2 is not a toxic gas. We exhale it, plants consume it and produce O2. I'm glad he reversed himself. They can't even prove CO2 has any real effect on global temperatures. Oxygen may be necessary for life. Too much of it is toxic. Reversed himself is the nice way to say it. He made an unequivocal promise that he would unilaterally reduce CO2 emission. Even Gore didn't go that far, btw. He even let his representative to the G-8 summit (EPA Director Whitman) announce that he was 100% behind it. (Or was that 1000%). Apparently, not only was he less that direct with the public, he was the same with his own people. Even Sec O'Neill supported the reduction. Cheney, with heavy ties to utilities, didn't. Ah, situational ethics again. I'm telling you, it's some sort of virus taht's endemic to thew White Housew. And I will not start up the greenhouse gas debate again. I'd adivse you not to either. Don't care, he has an astronomical job ahead of him and good people to help him succeed. We (sort of) elected, him, not all those "good people". The government should be run in a business-like manner, not run like a business. The government is supposed to look at the general good, not the P&L for whatever business/interest group gave a candidate/party/ money. Doesn't matter if its democrats or republicans, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter if it's the coal industry (in the case of CO2 emission) or environmental groups. Buying "access" is the problem and Bush seems to have no problem with the concept. After clinton, even Bozo the Chimp would be an improvement. "None of the above" would be an improvement. Sorry. I'm to cynical and jaded and liebral. I firmly believe that Bush will demonstrate that he's no improvement. A difference in kind, not type. 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 but the sad truth seems to be that democrat or republican, conservative, moderate or liberal, who ends up getting screwed is we, the people. BTW, I realized I never really said "welcome: on the welcome thread. Belated welcome. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 16 Mar 01 - 12:07 PM I like that euphemism for broken promise: "reversal." Not quite up there with Clinton's "depends on what you mean by 'is'," but then again Clinton's is usually taken way out of context and this one is ugly in situ. Compare it rather to Reagan's "collateral damage" for "civilian casualties." Republican Doublespeak is baaaaaaack! |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: Troll Date: 16 Mar 01 - 04:06 PM And in what way does Republican Doublespeak differ from Democrat Doublespeak? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHWHACKED-ENCORE From: mousethief Date: 16 Mar 01 - 05:42 PM Democrat Doublespeak -- at least of the Clinton variety -- is designed to further the goals of the speaker. Republican Doublespeak -- of the Reagan/Bush/Bush vaiety -- is designed to further the goals of the military/industrial complex. |
|
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
|
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: MAV Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:42 PM Flunked Economics didn't he? mav out |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 |
| Share Thread: |
