In article <3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
>> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
>> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
>> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
>> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
>The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
>Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
>to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
>debacle is less than 0.1%.

But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

In article <3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
>> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
>> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
>> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
>> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
>The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
>Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
>to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
>debacle is less than 0.1%.

But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

In article <3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
>> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
>> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
>> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
>> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
>The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
>Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
>to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
>debacle is less than 0.1%.

But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>st3ph3nm wrote:
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>
>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>
>>
>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is

Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

>and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
>has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
>don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>st3ph3nm wrote:
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>
>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>
>>
>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is

Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

>and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
>has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
>don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>st3ph3nm wrote:
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>
>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>
>>
>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>
>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is

Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

>and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
>has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
>don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
>
>Matt
>

 

In article <0mOrb.10345$pE3.3868@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Agreed, it's a choice we get to make of how much government we want. The
>problem I have with the left is when they lose legislatively, they often go
>to the courts.... to "progressive" judges.... to implement their agenda. So
>instead of legislative choice, we get an obligation of government.
>
>The more the government is saddled with the responsibility for people's
>welfare, the bigger government will be and the more taxes must be collected
>to support it.
>
>With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.

The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.


> At
>least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to the
>left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. We all know
>who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist goups, "victim"
>groups, etc.

And giving free rein to megacorporations is your idea of being in touch with
the average American?

>
>
>"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3fafa21d$0$3347$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
>> And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
>> this is much of the stuff of daily politics.
>>
>> DAS
>> --
>> ---
>> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> > You list precisely the limited government I support, which must
>establish
>> a
>> > secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
>> security,
>> > safety, rule of law, etc.
>> >
>> > If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
>> > across the board.
>> >
>> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bill Funk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
>> > > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
>> > > > used.
>> > >
>> > > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
>> > sailors and
>> > > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
>> > inspectors
>> > > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
>> aren't
>> > > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>> > >
>> > > Ed
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

In article <0mOrb.10345$pE3.3868@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Agreed, it's a choice we get to make of how much government we want. The
>problem I have with the left is when they lose legislatively, they often go
>to the courts.... to "progressive" judges.... to implement their agenda. So
>instead of legislative choice, we get an obligation of government.
>
>The more the government is saddled with the responsibility for people's
>welfare, the bigger government will be and the more taxes must be collected
>to support it.
>
>With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.

The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.


> At
>least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to the
>left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. We all know
>who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist goups, "victim"
>groups, etc.

And giving free rein to megacorporations is your idea of being in touch with
the average American?

>
>
>"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3fafa21d$0$3347$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
>> And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
>> this is much of the stuff of daily politics.
>>
>> DAS
>> --
>> ---
>> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> > You list precisely the limited government I support, which must
>establish
>> a
>> > secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
>> security,
>> > safety, rule of law, etc.
>> >
>> > If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
>> > across the board.
>> >
>> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bill Funk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
>> > > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
>> > > > used.
>> > >
>> > > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
>> > sailors and
>> > > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
>> > inspectors
>> > > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
>> aren't
>> > > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>> > >
>> > > Ed
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

In article <0mOrb.10345$pE3.3868@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Agreed, it's a choice we get to make of how much government we want. The
>problem I have with the left is when they lose legislatively, they often go
>to the courts.... to "progressive" judges.... to implement their agenda. So
>instead of legislative choice, we get an obligation of government.
>
>The more the government is saddled with the responsibility for people's
>welfare, the bigger government will be and the more taxes must be collected
>to support it.
>
>With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.

The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.


> At
>least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to the
>left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. We all know
>who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist goups, "victim"
>groups, etc.

And giving free rein to megacorporations is your idea of being in touch with
the average American?

>
>
>"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3fafa21d$0$3347$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
>> And there is the nub of the problem: where to draw the line. I think that
>> this is much of the stuff of daily politics.
>>
>> DAS
>> --
>> ---
>> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:ml7rb.14$pE3.13@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> > You list precisely the limited government I support, which must
>establish
>> a
>> > secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads,
>> security,
>> > safety, rule of law, etc.
>> >
>> > If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
>> > across the board.
>> >
>> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bill Funk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
>> > > > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
>> > > > used.
>> > >
>> > > Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
>> > sailors and
>> > > airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
>> > inspectors
>> > > checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime
>> aren't
>> > > providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>> > >
>> > > Ed
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

In article <PN2dnZ7up6HJWzKiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>>warming'?
>>
>>
>> Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.
>>
>> Ed
>
>But we don't need to set civilization back 400 years just to prove THAT,
>do we? Many of us consider it "sufficently proven" already. :-p
>
>

If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.