 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 |
|
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: 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: catspaw49 Date: 18 Mar 01 - 01:29 AM And don't forget William Shatner! Thanks gnu!!! Spaw |
|
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: gnu Date: 18 Mar 01 - 08:36 AM Spaw... Hey we're all sorry about that. sloooowwwgnu |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Greg F. Date: 18 Mar 01 - 05:09 PM RATS!!!having a bad day.CLICK HERE |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
The Guardian Weekly 8-3-2001, page 6
|
|
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: 22 Mar 01 - 09:11 AM |
|
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: 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: 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?" |
| Share Thread: |
