"Culture of Life" ??????? WTF?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!
DaveNOSPAM
The Chimperor lets water supplies get diluted with mercury and arsenic,
led Texas to have one of the WORST water and air quality scores during
his tenure as gubnor...
bombs Iraq killing over 12,000 civilians, allows military torture and
ignores Geneva conventions, has over 1000 US troops dead, over 30,000 wounded..
and he's going to preach about a CULTURE OF LIFE re abortion and stem cell
research?????
Judas Fucking Priest.
Dave
Marvin The Paranoid Android
"DaveNOSPAM" <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a9cab55.04100...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/04
fairandbalancedhyco-limbaughfartdetector
wrote:
so shit....I wanted to vomit when the AWOL Wonder started to preach
about the so-called culture of life with blood dripping from his hands
Vash The Stampede
> Let me get this straight:
>
> The Chimperor lets water supplies get diluted with mercury and arsenic,
> led Texas to have one of the WORST water and air quality scores during
> his tenure as gubnor...
Same levels allowed under Clinton's administration. Measure in Parts Per
Million. Your water supply is no more contaminated than it has been for
decades.
>
> bombs Iraq killing over 12,000 civilians, allows military torture and
> ignores Geneva conventions, has over 1000 US troops dead, over 30,000 wounded..
"Allowed" it? Seems to me there are Coutrs martial being condusted, with
one already convicted.
When has Bush ignored the Geneva Convention?
>
> and he's going to preach about a CULTURE OF LIFE re abortion and stem
> cell research?????
>
> Judas Fucking Priest.
And you can post half-truths and *maybe* someone will question them?
>
> Dave
--
Besides, what would they say if I told them
I was hanging out with Vash The Stampede?
the Bede
"Vash The Stampede" <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in message
news:BF2ad.4681$gI6.1082@trndny09...
>
> When has Bush ignored the Geneva Convention?
>
....................
Doorman
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made six donations. Just remember that big
money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and that
if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved Dick Cheney: "Go fuck yourself."
That mentality goes a long way towards explaining blather like this:
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Same levels allowed under Clinton's administration. Measure in
> Parts Per Million. Your water supply is no more contaminated than
> it has been for decades.
<snip>
> "Allowed" it? Seems to me there are Coutrs martial being condusted,
> with one already convicted.
> When has Bush ignored the Geneva Convention?
<snip>
> And you can post half-truths and *maybe* someone will question them?
[Detect any relationship to alt.fan.michael-moore? Zero? How about BS? Oh,
pegged the meter again.]
--
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Right. The question was, when has *Bush* ignored the Geneva
> Convention? I don't see *him* ignoring it at all. You're going to
> blame the actions of a very few misguided Fucktards on a President
> 10,000 miles away? If you want to play that, why did *CLINTON* bomb
> an aspirin plant. *That* was a direct order!
Doorman
troll's mental health seems to be declining steadily. He seems to be
completely losing touch with reality. Trying to defend Dubya's environmental
record and describing America as the "cleanest country"? Or is it just
typical Rushevikian ignorance of the rest of the world?
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Reegardless, we are the cleanest country on the face of the planet.
> There are plenty of others where the water is not fit to drink, the
> air not fit to breathe and have *no* environmental controls in
> place. Considering that a great deal of those are 'Third World'
> with barely any industry to speak of, that's pretty amazing, don't
> you think? Well, Don't you?
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Huh? You been sucking down arsenic water again? Phew. Topic, people!
Doorman
anyone? The troll is too much of a coward to see the movie, remember?
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<snip>
> Michael Moore told them what to think. They are probably running on
> 20 year old data (isn't that about when Roger and Me came out?)
> These people really don't seem to follow much of anything without
> the guidance of Moore, et al. If they ever did any research, they
> would find that most european countries didn't have catalytic
> converters on cars until the mid-late 80's/early 90's, that they
> *still* burn high-sulfer coal, use high sulfer oil, etc. The French
> were still dumping raw sewage into the 70's. But, Dan Rather, Peter
> Jennings etc don't tell them *this* just that Bush says 4 ppb
> arseninc in water is ok. Hey! Guess what! It is! These must be the
> people that ate lead paint as children...
Doorman
to be respectful:
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> See my response to Doormat, er, man
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> First of all, who's to say *we* are to blame for the Ozone hole? I
> have a Bass made in Japan by Fender, and it has a finish on it that
> was banned in the US many, many years ago because the chemicals
> used to make it are harmful to the environment. For guitars, it is
> an excellent finish, but yu can't buy a US made guitar with it. But
> my Jap made bass has it, and it was made in '97, *MANY* years after
> banning in the US.
>
> And, yes, we *do* have to look to other countries and their
> environmental values. We *are* the cleanest industrialized nation
> in the world, and it makes it that much harder to compete in a
> global market. In other countries where they just don't care, it is
> much easier and cheaper to do things the good old way, since there
> isn't a need to develop new technology to do the same thing. Take
> Urethane paint for cars compared to the new base-coat/clear coat
> combinations. When urethane first came out, it was extremely
> expensive. Imron, used on spacecraft, was running $400 a gallon in
> some cases, at 1980 prices. Now, its the polyesters that run
> hundreds of dollars per galon, while urethanes can be had for as
> low as $40. So, if I'm running a company in Brazil making circuit
> boards, and I can clean them with the latest solutions for big $$$,
> or I can use Freon (no longer in use in the US but readily
> available other places) for pennies, *and* I have no EPA to contend
> with, what am I going to do? By comparison, the US is infinitely
> cleaner than other countries. So, should we regulate business so
> they can no longer compete. If you can buy something for $110, and
> the similar item made in China costs $35, which are you going to
> buy? You have to consciously make these decisions in the
> marketplace. I remember one case where some tree huggers were
> caught
> with bombs in their car, and Save the Earth type stickers all over
> it, and the thing was blowing oil so badly it was disgusting! Do as
> I say, not as I do? 'Course, that doesn't mean to say GE in
> Pittsfield can go dumping PCBs into the Housatonic all over again,
> but you get my meaning.
[Except for the incoherence that qualifies under mindlessness, this one
almost wasn't worth collecting. I'm beginning to suspect the Rushevik troll
has lost heart when he or she fell to #2.]
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in
> news:IzHad.3419$wV4.2630@trndny03:
> I repeat:
>
> Your entire argument consists of 'we're not as bad as the other guy' - a
> debatable proposition at best - which is a bit like a heroin junkie
> looking at a crackhead and going 'geez, THAT guy has problems!'
>
> YOu seem to suggest that the extent of our 'looking at other countries'
> should begin and end with 'HEY THEY'RE MAKING MORE MONEY THAN WE ARE!'
> This is, of course, nonsense. There are other considerations, many of
> them more important, and there are effective things we can do to strongly
> encourage other countries to be more cautious about their own
> environmental damage, including economic sanctions and product boycotts.
>
> You continue parrotting this 'The US is cleaner than other
> [industrialized] countries' line. I'd like to see some evidence of this.
> I find it questionable - not laughable, but questionable.
>
> You ask 'why blame us?' Because we are the largest single group of
> consumers in the world, that's why. Various estimates place our total
> share of the world's pollution at 25% or more, even though we have only
> about 5% of the world's population. We generate more garbage per capita -
> and recycle less of it - than many other countries, perhaps all of them.
> If you would like, I'll chase down some numbers on this.
>
> Finally, the US alleges itself to be the world's technological and
> industrial leader - the only superpower on the planet. With that position
> comes a responsibility for leadership. If we are to be leaders, then it
> is incumbent upon us to set an example for the rest of the world to
> follow. We have failed miserably in this responsibility, and torpedoing
> Kyoto is only one small part of it. Time and time again, industrial and
> corporate interests buy their way out of having to be responsible stewards
> of this planet.
>
> As long as that's the case, we are facing the ever-increasing likelihood
> that this planet will, at some point, simply refuse to continue supporting
> us. Barring a massive exodus to other inhabitable planets - and let's not
> forget that we haven't *found* another inhabitable planet yet - this
> little blue-green rock is all we got.
>
> We best take care of it.
But we *are* the leaders! We develop most of the environmenatl contorls,
cleaners, scrubbers, etc in the world. We use more of them than anybody.
You can't strangle business. In my second time around in college, I took
an economics course. Every year this school had a week devoted to a topic,
with a guest speaker, an expert in whatever field, making an appearance on
the Friday of that week. This one year it was environmentalism. For the
class, we were handed a chart showing the levels of pollution, the costs
of cleaning, and the gains by cleaning. Teacher (Professor, actually) told
us we could leave if someone could read the chart. Many tried. I said, all
the time looking at the chart, "the company will clean to point B and end
at point E" "Class dismissed!" You know where point E was? About 2/3.
After that, the cleaning became so cost prohibitive that the company was
paying more to clean the environment than it was making in revenue (notice
I didn't say *profit* ). After that, very, very *small* gains in cleanig
cost *huge* sums of money. Now, what does it serve to put business *OUT*
of business in order to keep the environment pristine. Besides, Mt St
Helens can do more damage to the envirnment in one hour than a
number of companies can do in an entire year! Yes, we *are* the cleanest
industrialized country in the world, with perhaps the exception of Canada,
and that is only because they don't have as much industry but follow the
same or similar environmental rules.
Evil Sideshow Bob
to Sparkle Motion!
>But we *are* the leaders! We develop most of the environmenatl contorls,
>cleaners, scrubbers, etc in the world. We use more of them than anybody.
PPOR
--
"Profanity on the internet is a no-no..." - Trijcomm aka Janis Johnson, 10/9/2004
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> But we *are* the leaders! We develop most of the environmenatl
> contorls, cleaners, scrubbers, etc in the world. We use more of
> them than anybody. You can't strangle business. In my second time
> around in college, I took an economics course. Every year this
> school had a week devoted to a topic, with a guest speaker, an
> expert in whatever field, making an appearance on the Friday of
> that week. This one year it was environmentalism. For the class, we
> were handed a chart showing the levels of pollution, the costs of
> cleaning, and the gains by cleaning. Teacher (Professor, actually)
> told us we could leave if someone could read the chart. Many tried.
> I said, all the time looking at the chart, "the company will clean
> to point B and end at point E" "Class dismissed!" You know where
> point E was? About 2/3. After that, the cleaning became so cost
> prohibitive that the company was paying more to clean the
> environment than it was making in revenue (notice I didn't say
> *profit* ). After that, very, very *small* gains in cleanig cost
> *huge* sums of money. Now, what does it serve to put business *OUT*
> of business in order to keep the environment pristine. Besides, Mt
> St Helens can do more damage to the envirnment in one hour than a
> number of companies can do in an entire year! Yes, we *are* the
> cleanest industrialized country in the world, with perhaps the
> exception of Canada, and that is only because they don't have as
> much industry but follow the same or similar environmental rules.
--
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in news:D03bd.2185$uN4.783
> @trndny05:
>
>> But we *are* the leaders!
>
> You continue asserting this without evidence. I have asked you several
> times to provide proof of your assertion taht we are 'the cleanest country
> in the industrialized world' or that we have 'better environmental
> controls.'
>
> Please provide your evidence for these assertions. Further failure to do
> so will be regarded as a concession of the points.
I really can't point you anywhere. My sources run from the Evil Rush
Limbaugh (LARGE grain of salt there) to 60 Minutes, to the BBC, to NPR, to
PBS, the WSJ, EPA rulings, etc. I used to have a job where we had to be
*very* environmentally aware, and had training, drills, etc. We were
constantly bonbarded with materis, articles, etc; and I still listen to
and read a great deal of the above sources. Even the BBC says Yurrip isn't
as clean as the US, but is catching up.
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your commitment
> to Sparkle Motion!
>
>>But we *are* the leaders! We develop most of the environmenatl contorls,
>>cleaners, scrubbers, etc in the world. We use more of them than anybody.
>
> PPOR
?huh?
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> I really can't point you anywhere. My sources run from the Evil Rush
> Limbaugh (LARGE grain of salt there) to 60 Minutes, to the BBC, to
> NPR, to PBS, the WSJ, EPA rulings, etc. I used to have a job where
> we had to be *very* environmentally aware, and had training,
> drills, etc. We were constantly bonbarded with materis, articles,
> etc; and I still listen to and read a great deal of the above
> sources. Even the BBC says Yurrip isn't as clean as the US, but is
> catching up.
--
Doorman
thusly:
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> ?huh?
But the blather thread welcomes all truly mindless contributions.
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in
> news:uRIbd.1193$pt1.434@trndny02:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:24:52 +0000, John Henry wrote:
>>
>>> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in
>>> news:Mrkbd.199$9K1.129@trndny09:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:47:27 -0400, Evil Sideshow Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your
>>>>> commitment to Sparkle Motion!
>>>>>
>>>>>>But we *are* the leaders! We develop most of the environmenatl
>>>>>>contorls, cleaners, scrubbers, etc in the world. We use more of
>>>>>>them than anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> PPOR
>>>>
>>>> ?huh?
>>>
>>> Post. Proof. Or. Retract.
>>
>> See another post where I listed my sources. The BBC and the Wall
>> Street Journal are two good starting points. You'll find reams in
>> each. But not in the Mother Earth news or your local Liberal
>> newspaper. They're still living in the 70's
>
> You con't understand the concept of citing, do you? I have no way of
> knowing whether what you claim to have read actually exists or not;
> furthermore, even if I assume it does exist, I have no way of judging the
> quality of that information myself until and unless I can READ it myself.
> Maybe what you interpret as meaning 'The US pollutes less than anyone'
> actually SAYS 'the US produces less of one particular type or class of
> pollution than anyone.' Maybe it says somethign entirely different, and
> you just can't read. Until I can see your source material, I don't know,
> and you have no reasonable expectation that I should just take your word
> for it.
>
> Surely a fact such as this would be circulated widely enough that you can
> scrape up a couple of decent URLs of articles which substantiate your
> claims.
OK, try this. Start reading the Wall Street Journal and listening to the
BBC. That's basically how I gather my information. Also, NPR (All thing
Considered and Morning Edition) and PBS. Since the last two don't bend the
truth TOO much, it will substantiate what I say...esp the BBC. I have been
using all these sources for at least ten years (ATC since 1975) and pay
particular attention when they talk about the record of the US comapred to
the rest of the world. How about India and Pakistan, where they burn dung
for methane, which is a *BIG* contributor to greenhouse gasses? I have
heard that on the BBC, NPR and (gasp) Rush Limbaugh...
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in
> news:ltJbd.3290$9f1.701@trndny05:
> NO, son.
>
> THIS is how you make a cited claim:
>
> "Yes, the US WAS responsible for arming Saddam Hussein with bioweapons.
> You can view a full report of the senate investigation into these sales at
> http://members.aol.com/vetcenter/reigle.htm. Among the conclusons reached
> by the report is that 'The United States provided the Government of Iraq
> with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of
> Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including:(6)
> chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production
> facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production
> facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare
> related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system
> guidance equipment', which you can find near the bottom of the first page
> of the report."
>
> THAT is a cited claim.
>
>> Start reading the Wall Street Journal
>
> Now I'm supposed to pay for a newspaper subscription on the off chance
> that you're going to repeat something in it? *rolls eyes*
>
>> and listening to the BBC.
>
> I listen to the BBC world service at least twice a week. However, they
> don't broadcast the same stories every day, and I have no way of knowing
> if I was listening to the particular broadcast that you think supports
> your argument. This is not a cite.
>
>> That's basically how I gather my information.
>
> Good for you, but unless you can provide some specific example that can be
> independently verified, it means absolutely nothing to this conversation.
>
>> Also, NPR (All thing Considered and Morning Edition)
>
> I hear at least parts of these shows at least four days per week. Without
> context, referencing them is meaningless. What's stopping me from saying
> "The earth is flat! Just listen to NPR if you don't believe me, I heard a
> guy on there once who said so!" and considering that adequate
> justification for YOU to believe the earth is flat? Just because YOUR
> proposition is ostensibly less ridiculous does not mean it is any better
> proven by such a poor cite.
>
> When you can provide a cite substantiating your claims, come on by and see
> me.
I don't have that much time. Google works well. The thing is, I know what
I know, and what I have gathered over the years from the above sources and
others: Marketplace on PRI is another good one. And the WSJ is a good way
to become and stay informed; they often cover BOTH sides of any issue, so
if you read it religiously you'll be as well informed as I am! But my
references would be so vast (without drawing on Limbaugh, et al) that it
would take me too much time to re-gether all that information. It is also,
pardon, not worth it. I have already stated a great deal of what I have
gleaned from the aforementioned sources, choose to believe it or not.
Bottom line: the regulations currently in place put us in the lead for
clean technology. Any further we regulate ourselve out of business. And
since manufacturing is on the decline while service industries are
soaring, it is nowhere near the Big Deal it was in the last 25 years. Go
after the Chinese...
Doorman
lunatics? Here's another bit of evidence from the most visible avowed
Rushevik troll:
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<snip>
> See another post where I listed my sources. The BBC and the Wall
> Street Journal are two good starting points. You'll find reams in
> each. But not in the Mother Earth news or your local Liberal
> newspaper. They're still living in the 70's
--
Evil Sideshow Bob
to Sparkle Motion!
>The thing is, I know what I know
Well shit, John Henry, that's good enough for me... what say you brah?
--
"Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the
worst episode ever. Rest assured I was on the internet
within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world."
Evil Sideshow Bob
commitment to Sparkle Motion!
>Evil Sideshow Bob <RobertUnderdu...@springfieldpenitentiary.net>
>wrote in news:r611n0tt4u37auinr...@4ax.com:
>
>> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your commitment
>> to Sparkle Motion!
>>
>>>The thing is, I know what I know
>>
>> Well shit, John Henry, that's good enough for me... what say you brah?
>
>Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
>
>I'd talk with you about it in depth, but I gotta get back to this cold
>fusion experiment I'm working on.
Yeah, I read about your CF work in the Wall Street Journal... kudos!
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> I don't have that much time. Google works well. The thing is, I
> know what I know, and what I have gathered over the years from the
> above sources and others: Marketplace on PRI is another good one.
> And the WSJ is a good way to become and stay informed; they often
> cover BOTH sides of any issue, so if you read it religiously you'll
> be as well informed as I am! But my references would be so vast
> (without drawing on Limbaugh, et al) that it would take me too much
> time to re-gether all that information. It is also, pardon, not
> worth it. I have already stated a great deal of what I have gleaned
> from the aforementioned sources, choose to believe it or not.
> Bottom line: the regulations currently in place put us in the lead
> for clean technology. Any further we regulate ourselve out of
> business. And since manufacturing is on the decline while service
> industries are soaring, it is nowhere near the Big Deal it was in
> the last 25 years. Go after the Chinese...
--
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your commitment
> to Sparkle Motion!
>
>>The thing is, I know what I know
>
> Well shit, John Henry, that's good enough for me... what say you brah?
My time is worth more than that. Get yourselve subscriptions to the Wall
Street Journal and listen to the BBC while you're reading it. Do I have to
spoonfeed you? Google works well, too.
Doorman
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made seven donations. Just remember that
big money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and
that if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already
dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved Dick Cheney: "Go fuck yourself."
That mentality goes a long way towards explaining blather like this:
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> My time is worth more than that. Get yourselve subscriptions to the
> Wall Street Journal and listen to the BBC while you're reading it.
> Do I have to spoonfeed you? Google works well, too.
["My source can beat up your source!" Whoops, the Rushevik troll forgot to
mention his main source: Rush Limbaugh.]
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in
> news:q9hcd.482$UX3.268@trndny03:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:19:30 -0400, Evil Sideshow Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your commitment
>>> to Sparkle Motion!
>>>
>>>>The thing is, I know what I know
>>>
>>> Well shit, John Henry, that's good enough for me... what say you
>>> brah?
>>
>> My time is worth more than that.
>
> Y&eah, that's why you're posting to Usenet. Because your fucking time is
> so valuable.
Guess I asked for that, eh? Whew.
>
>> Get yourselve subscriptions to the
>> Wall Street Journal and listen to the BBC while you're reading it.
>
> I gotta spend money for YOU to prove a point? Fuck off.
Wound a little too tight tonight? Go to the Library.
>
>> Do I have to spoonfeed you? Google works well, too.
>
> You haven't spoonfed anyone anything. You also haven't proven anything,
> haven't supported a single assertion you've made.
They are all provable. You didn't substantiate *your* original post, so
why are your panties all in a bunch? Just because my sources say
something different from yours?
>
> I'm sorry that you think you're exempt from the standard burden of proof
> that falls on anyone who makes an assertion in public discussion/debate,
> but you're not, and that does NOT make those holding opposite opinions
> ignorant - it makes YOU ignorant, destroys any credibility which you may
> have had, and is also a good way to paint a target on your forehead.
So be it. What does it matter? Read and listen to the radio, you'll often
hear what I'm talking about. You choose to believe it or not...ehh...but
we still don't need to legislate business out of business, bottom line.
>
> It is obvious that - in spite of how easy you claim it is - you cannot
> support your assertions regarding the relative levels of negative
> environmental impact in the US versus in other countries.
It is a matter of public record.
>
> I *was* willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you are
> obviously either too ignorant or too frightened to provide the
> information you claim supports you, I must assume at this point that you
> know you're full of shit.
Look, I'm not necessarily looking to prove *you* wrong, I merely stated,
based on what I have heard, seen and read, that the United States is
considered by a lot of sources to be among the cleanest industrial
entities on this particular planet. And from what I have heard, seen and
read, I believe this to be true. The fact remains, as stated above, how
far are you willing to go to regulate business on environmental issues?
One of two things will happen: they will get *out* of manufacturing,
further eroding the base employment for those without higher education who
*need* those jobs, or they will send their manufacturing overseas, same
result. There are *plenty* of countries that do *not* have these same
regulations and would *gladly* accept new factories where their
populations can be employed. Is this what you want? Then the cry will be
that there are no jobs left in America. You can't have your cake and eat
it too. Look at CAFE standards. The gov't wants 29 MPG as the next step in
CAFE standards. You gonna drive the equivalent of a Yugo? More and more
SUVs are not going to make it! Ford has wised up and is making a hybrid
SUV, but we are still a long way off. Honda has been surpassing both CAFE
and EPA for decades. As technology increases, the advancements will come.
Great. But they will be employed in the manufacturing facilities in those
other countries. There has to ba a balance between cleanliness and
business.
Doorman
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made seven donations. Just remember that
big money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and
that if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already
dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved Dick Cheney: "Go f*ck yourself.
The following post was selected for inclusion in this "special" thread for
one or more of the following reasons:
1. Ad hominem evasion of real issues.
2. Stone-headed fanaticism.
3. Impersonal hate speech, such as racism.
4. Spinning diversion or trivilization of issues.
5. Blatant lies or hypocrisy.
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<snip>
> Guess I asked for that, eh? Whew.
<snip>
> Wound a little too tight tonight? Go to the Library.
<snip>
> They are all provable. You didn't substantiate *your* original
> post, so why are your panties all in a bunch? Just because my
> sources say something different from yours?
<snip>
> So be it. What does it matter? Read and listen to the radio, you'll
> often hear what I'm talking about. You choose to believe it or
> not...ehh...but we still don't need to legislate business out of
> business, bottom line.
<snip>
> It is a matter of public record.
<snip>
> Look, I'm not necessarily looking to prove *you* wrong, I merely
> stated, based on what I have heard, seen and read, that the United
> States is considered by a lot of sources to be among the cleanest
> industrial entities on this particular planet. And from what I have
> heard, seen and read, I believe this to be true. The fact remains,
> as stated above, how far are you willing to go to regulate business
> on environmental issues? One of two things will happen: they will
> get *out* of manufacturing, further eroding the base employment for
> those without higher education who *need* those jobs, or they will
> send their manufacturing overseas, same result. There are *plenty*
> of countries that do *not* have these same regulations and would
> *gladly* accept new factories where their populations can be
> employed. Is this what you want? Then the cry will be that there
> are no jobs left in America. You can't have your cake and eat it
> too. Look at CAFE standards. The gov't wants 29 MPG as the next
> step in CAFE standards. You gonna drive the equivalent of a Yugo?
> More and more SUVs are not going to make it! Ford has wised up and
> is making a hybrid SUV, but we are still a long way off. Honda has
> been surpassing both CAFE and EPA for decades. As technology
> increases, the advancements will come. Great. But they will be
> employed in the manufacturing facilities in those other countries.
> There has to ba a balance between cleanliness and business.
--
Evil Sideshow Bob
to Sparkle Motion!
>I merely stated,
>based on what I have heard, seen and read, that the United States is
>considered by a lot of sources to be among the cleanest industrial
>entities on this particular planet.
That's funny, I could have sworn you were claiming it was *the*
cleanest industrial entity on this particular planet... now it's
"among the cleanest."
I think we see now why you are reluctant to cite anything...
--
"Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the
worst episode ever. Rest assured I was on the internet
within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world."
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn>, sometimes I doubt your commitment
> to Sparkle Motion!
>
>>I merely stated,
>>based on what I have heard, seen and read, that the United States is
>>considered by a lot of sources to be among the cleanest industrial
>>entities on this particular planet.
>
> That's funny, I could have sworn you were claiming it was *the*
> cleanest industrial entity on this particular planet... now it's
> "among the cleanest."
>
> I think we see now why you are reluctant to cite anything...
Well, Canada is probably a little cleaner, only because there are areas
where there *is* no industry. Japan is probably as clean. Britain is
getting there. As far as France, Germany and other Europen countries,
until only very recently they were using high sulfer coal for electric
generation and esp in coal fired trains. Germany only added catalytic
converters in the late 1980's.
Vash The Stampede
> Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote in news:wFlcd.4903$oU3.1023
> @trndny04:
>
>> They are all provable. You didn't substantiate *your* original post, so
>> why are your panties all in a bunch? Just because my sources say
>> something different from yours?
>
> *I* haven't made any claims, beyond "I'd like to see some evidence of your
> assertion." Comprehension not your strong suit?
Whoa. Hey man, how about a truce?! Geez...
Doorman
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
Especially if you remember the old days of thoughtful discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are many alternatives. For example, there are many less
anonymous forums on the Internet where polite discussions can be found. Even
better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical world. For
example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like Fahrenheit 9/11.
Lots of good books still being published. (Michael Moore has two new ones.)
You could write a letter for your local paper--you'll reach more "normal"
people and probably have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the
political campaigns--I confess I've already made seven donations. Just
remember that big money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money
than anyone, and that if money alone decides elections then the American
republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved Dick Cheney: "Go f*ck yourself.
When selecting "featured" posts for this mindless blather thread, the
following factors are considered:
1. Ad hominem evasion of real issues.
2. Stone-headed fanaticism.
3. Generalized hate speech, such as racism.
4. Spinning diversion or trivialization of issues.
5. Blatant lies or hypocrisy.
6. Overt trolling, such as extensive cross-posting.
7. Incomprehensible writing.
8. Vicious negative emotionalism, especially amusing personal attacks.
[For the purposes of this thread, the freshest original parts are usually
sufficient, but use the last entry on the References: header line if you
want to see the full context.]
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Whoa. Hey man, how about a truce?! Geez...
[Where's the war? Apparently in the Rushevik troll's mind? I feel complete
peace with the situation.]
Doorman
Vash The Stampede <tri...@2am.cn> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
> Well, Canada is probably a little cleaner, only because there are
> areas where there *is* no industry. Japan is probably as clean.
> Britain is getting there. As far as France, Germany and other
> Europen countries, until only very recently they were using high
> sulfer coal for electric generation and esp in coal fired trains.
> Germany only added catalytic converters in the late 1980's.
[The Rushevik troll is trying to spin out of an amusing Category 1 lie.]