I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly
seems to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.



Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>
>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>use that quote against.
>
>
> Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
> mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>
> Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
> whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>
>
>
>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>
>
> Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
> They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
> few elections...

More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
better.
>
> My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>
>
>

 

I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly
seems to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.



Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>
>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>use that quote against.
>
>
> Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
> mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>
> Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
> whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>
>
>
>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>
>
> Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
> They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
> few elections...

More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
better.
>
> My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>
>
>

 

R. Lander wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>>>header, not your altered one.
>>>
>>>You forget that the *****....
>>
>>Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

So Lander, your claim is that lefties take better care of the
environment than we nighties do?

Jeff DeWitt

 

R. Lander wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>>>header, not your altered one.
>>>
>>>You forget that the *****....
>>
>>Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

So Lander, your claim is that lefties take better care of the
environment than we nighties do?

Jeff DeWitt

 

R. Lander wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
>
>>R. Lander wrote:
>>
>>>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
>>>header, not your altered one.
>>>
>>>You forget that the *****....
>>
>>Ding Ding Ding. Gowdin's law is hereby invoked. You Loose. Now go away.
>
>
> Why not invoke Godwin's Law on the cretin who added "*****" to my
> original header? I was pointing out that ***** were/are far more
> right-wing (anti-environmental) in their actions. Take it up with the
> liar, not the corrector.
>
> R. Lander
>

So Lander, your claim is that lefties take better care of the
environment than we nighties do?

Jeff DeWitt

 

Jeff that is a terrible thing to say about Mr. Gore's loss in the 2000
election.

He was a nutcase long before then. In his 1992 literary masterpiece "Earth
in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose" he says he would rather see
women to die a horrible painful death than to cut down a tree.

I assume that is why the tree huggers support him...


"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:x_ggg.19453$JW5.16995@southeast.rr.com...
>I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly seems
>to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.
>
>
>
> Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>>use that quote against.
>>
>>
>> Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
>> mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>>
>> Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
>> whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>>
>>
>> Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
>> They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
>> few elections...
>
> More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
> exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
> better.
>>
>> My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>>
>>

 

Jeff that is a terrible thing to say about Mr. Gore's loss in the 2000
election.

He was a nutcase long before then. In his 1992 literary masterpiece "Earth
in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose" he says he would rather see
women to die a horrible painful death than to cut down a tree.

I assume that is why the tree huggers support him...


"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:x_ggg.19453$JW5.16995@southeast.rr.com...
>I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly seems
>to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.
>
>
>
> Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>>use that quote against.
>>
>>
>> Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
>> mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>>
>> Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
>> whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>>
>>
>> Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
>> They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
>> few elections...
>
> More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
> exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
> better.
>>
>> My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>>
>>

 

Jeff that is a terrible thing to say about Mr. Gore's loss in the 2000
election.

He was a nutcase long before then. In his 1992 literary masterpiece "Earth
in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose" he says he would rather see
women to die a horrible painful death than to cut down a tree.

I assume that is why the tree huggers support him...


"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:x_ggg.19453$JW5.16995@southeast.rr.com...
>I guess it depends how you define nutcase, although Al Gore certainly seems
>to have been pushed over the edge by losing the 2000 election.
>
>
>
> Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 6/1/2006 9:56 PM, Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
>>>Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
>>>use that quote against.
>>
>>
>> Another?? Not a single Democrat candidate at the federal level comes to
>> mind who could honestly be called a "nutcase."
>>
>> Now, some of the more localized candidates are borderline, but that's a
>> whole 'nother ballpark. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
>>>someone good to run against him (or her).
>>
>>
>> Why should the Republicans have to come up with someone good?
>> They've done *very* well with the exceedingly bad candidates of the last
>> few elections...
>
> More's the pity... Actually I don't think Bush (either one), was
> exccedingly bad, but the Republicans should have been able to do a lot
> better.
>>
>> My advice: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. :)
>>
>>

 

This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
ecologically.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg

That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
sustain dense cities.

Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
the land.

Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
need help from the off-road lobby.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg

R. Lander

 

This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
ecologically.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg

That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
sustain dense cities.

Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
the land.

Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
need help from the off-road lobby.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg

R. Lander