The Environmentalists' Agenda
G. L. Bradford
captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
The normal condition of the world for millions of years now has been 'Ice
Age' with interludes widely differing in lengths of "global warming." Even
during the periods of global warming there have been interludes of differing
length "little ice ages" such as the half of a millennia lasting one that
just ended not all that long ago in the mid 1800s when the overall interlude
of global warming resumed. The average big time ice age lasts about 30,000
to 80,000 years but the last big one was the longest on record, if memory
serves, lasting some 112,000 years. Warming started some 35,000 years ago
but didn't begin to pick up steam until about 11,000 years ago.
The Antarctic ice shelf [is] melting but only in one quadrant of it, from
what I've been reading. Antarctica is actually generally increasing in
snows, gaining new layers of ice, in all other quadrants more than
offsetting the loss in the one quadrant.
Relaxing and watching the Discovery Channel one day, I saw a program about
the tides of Earth's oceans. How during periods of collapse "from global
warming" the tides for some unknown reason will be generally running
north-south rather than east-west as we are used to.
Earth's Moon, I read not to long ago, is at a point in its long term
drift -- in toward the Earth and out and away from the Earth -- the farthest
away from the Earth it has ever been observed to be...and recorded to be.
It's gravitational influence upon the entire Earth and all Earth's tides and
climates, and insides, has to have changed some from this increase in
distance. The Moon's gravitational drift itself constantly changes the shape
and form of the Earth, changing the shape and form of Earth's surface
conditions.
At the same time, growing consistency of observations of the Sun witness
recent decades of [relatively] massive increases in the number and virulence
of solar storms and flairs, with shorter time scales of interludes between.
All of which impact Earth's surface and atmospheric conditions.
Again, the agenda of Environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny.
Making Man captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
authoritarianism. It is but one of many such similar agendas now that have
mass, weight, and momentum, all of them massively, momentously, interacting
in some higher dimensional way beyond practically anyone's grasp of what is
forming with regard to Man's world, much less adhering to ANYONE's -- any
kind of STATE's -- span of control and direction. All of these agendas are
(so to speak) adding straw to the camel's back and none of them see, or can
possibly see, the others' straw or addition of straw, much less the grand
total amount of straw now on the camel's back. One day one of them (pick
one, any one) is going to add the final last least most insignificant of all
feather weight piece of catastrophic straw-string to the camel's back. A
practically weightless, tiniest most insignificant piece of straw-string
that in no way by itself should or could ever actuate, spark, detonate,
trigger, world Apocalypse or Armageddon. But it would.
GLB
William Elliot
> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making Man
> captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
> authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
> stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
>
The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing but unabash
greed. Making people captive to money as the measure of all things human
and divine in a totalitarian big brother state.
The Earth has never once in its history had a long term not corrupt
government. Corruption has always been wishing you a lousy day.
> The normal condition of the world for millions of years now has been 'Ice
Chill out, you're not normal.
jmfb...@aol.com
William Elliot <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>
>> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making
Man
>> captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
>> authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
>> stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
>>
>The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny.
<SNORT>
/BAH
William Elliot
As republs do love corruption, too bad.
Blitzkreig
>The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing
>but unabash greed. Making people captive to money as the
>measure of all things human and divine in a totalitarian big
>brother state.
Sorry, it's not that focused. Look at the numbers. I'm sure
there are a great deal more Bush-haters, including the Hezbollah,
that make your accusation seem luke warm.
>The Earth has never once in its history had a long term not
>corrupt government. Corruption has always been wishing you
>a lousy day.
One might believe that wealthy bankers were the reason that
most elected officials were bought by mass propoganda, rather
than reforging the spirit of independence that our forefathers
believed was true and just.
>>The normal condition of the world for millions of years now
>>has been 'Ice
>Chill out, you're not normal.
No, he's right. It's the other wrongs, INCLUDING the present
economic system, that must eliminate all the invalidators of
intellectual capital, particularly in the fields of applied
science and engineering.
jmfb...@aol.com
In my state, it's the Democrats who are corrupt and
are learning to deal with the consequences at the moment.
/BAH
Chris Jones
[a whole spew of stuff off-topic to every group he picked]
Please be a good netizen and use appropriate groups instead of trying to
incite off-topic flame wars in unrelated groups. I've tried giving you a
clue with the Followup.
Blitzkreig
Chris Jones wrote:
>[a whole spew of stuff off-topic to every group he picked]
>Please be a good netizen and use appropriate groups instead
>of trying to incite off-topic flame wars in unrelated groups. I've
>tried giving you a clue with the Followup.
Apparently, Chris Jones is top posting at <talk.environment>,
but only *reads* true flamer posts at <sci.space.policy>.
Chris Jones
Not true (neither part of your sentence). What article(s) in
talk.environment are you claiming are from me?
Blitzkreig
Uh, I don't read <talk.environment>, but the follow-up to your
original post was not immediately automatic, like it is here.
That's why I said you were "top posting". Apparently, I confused
"good netizen" with "netizen drip", but am in no way apologizing.
applied_science
William Elliot, stop berating the headliner's post and go back to your
<sci.math> pencil-necked Pointdexter cave and keep dreaming.
Without an application or substance, you're just another dead body
in the water.
richard schumacher
For discussion of the facts of global warming by real scientists see
http://realclimate.org
Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B
There is a ruse being played here on the American public.
Environmental-ism becomes a problem when the blame tends to
be shifted on the American engineers and scientists responsible for
"modernizing" via post WWII-boom things like transportation, energy,
and communications. We have all bought into this system of tech-
nology - the only human beings on the planet who were not affected
by it were not "modernizing".
But the problem is a lot more fundamental, and affects every aspect
of our being. The lesson to be learned from modernization is that
the modernization was mostly militaristic - transportation lanes
providing our supply routes, atomic bomb-like energy for powering
facilities for our schools, hospitals, work, government, and homes,
and computer networks for communication and dissemination -
all being done in the name of righteousness for America's sake -
forgetting the needs of the mentored man, all for the sake of
increasingly leisurist, materialist greed and gain. It will be quite
painful to put ourselves "outside" of the establishment in order to
rediscover where our independence lies - because it doesn't lie with
the establishment politicians, popular news media, environmental
scientists, NASA, or any of the other beleaguered institutions of
higher education.
Our independence lies with establishing an independent presence
in space - independent from politicians who want to force an issue
with the environment - and blame it on those who have practiced
the Engineer's Creed:
I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the
advancement and betterment of human welfare. I pledge:
To give utmost of performance; To participate in none but
honest enterprise; To live and work according to the laws
of man and the highest standards of professional conduct;
To place service before profit, the honor and standing of
the profession before personal advantage, and the public
welfare above all other considerations. In humility and
with need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge.
The Engineer's Creed has become obsolete in the minds of
pundits who believe that populist communications for television
and radio get too bogged down in details with scientific fact in
order to create Hollywood spin. Stories need to be spicy in
order to be accepted into mainstream media. Taking the sup-
erficial results of scientific investigation and extrapolating
environmental causes (situational ethics of social, political,
religious, or even another spin-off technology) results in
distorting the intended consequences for advancing the
human condition.
We don't need professional analyzers to tell us what the earth
will do on its own anyway, that is just too dogmatic to be what
is already happening. We don't need politicians or HAARP to
save us, if the anti-Christ has already come to the inhabitants
of the earth.
What we need is to be ready in case something terrible should
happen - as in the already-made weather service for coastal or
riverside dwelling locales, or even finding a new earth in case
this one becomes a cultural prison planet.
This is where <sci.space.policy> comes in. It is a forum to
share these ideas, as well as be aware of what the rusemasters
are up to. It is like the "Eye of the Tiger" where intellectual
capital has value, not "purported worth".
Claude
squeakyest wheel the government is oiling. The opposition had better
well speak up before they are shut up for good.
--
Linux is just a fancy name for Windows blocker.
Claude Hopper
applied_science
Claude wrote:
>
> We all know it's about communist control. Problem is they are the
> squeakyest wheel the government is oiling. The opposition had better
> well speak up before they are shut up for good.
>
sents just a bigger gulag on American ingenuity and independence, don't
you think? Besides, who wants Big Brother looking over your shoulder
when your invention depends upon their non-participation?
>
<scratched>
>
hanson
in that NG are inconsequential by any & all means and standards]
Brad, in your post below you state:
---- "The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny." ----
Brad, let me tell you that what you worry about below is just the
tip of this vile, green disease. It is far worse than you say, Brad.
*** Environmentalists are the root cause for high gas prices
*** and the reason for the current world wide terrorism.
If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
would also have the H-fusion problems licked --- and we would
not be survival dependant on, and being held hostage by
Venez-Hugos, Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all fomenters and
financiers of terrorism against us ... (who have brought'em wealth
and power in the first palce.... ahahahaha.... ironic, isn't it.)
Therefore, it is not without cause and reason that in 2005
=1= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the US.
=2= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
=3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had
enough from environmentalism and began to raise their
voices as in news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
wherein it is posted: "Fucking greens should be shot...."
The goons who drove environmentalism into high gear
had never any intention "to save the environment". For
them it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to make BIG
TIME and easy money as can be seen in the modern,
attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
= Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably
= global warming, tobacco and other green shit. Great lies in
= service for/of a "noble cause" do trump now truth & fact.
=
= Enviros use the old great lies of yore. Only the color changed.
= (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green...
= (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...
= (C) Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer.
So, Brad, let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
do retort following this. Have you noticed how many brainwashed
little green idiots disliked and objected to your post below, citing
all kind of phony guises. Answer each of their posts and tell'em
that have exposed themselves as being class 3 enviros... them
being helpers and foot-solders for the terrorists....
.... Then watch'em turn green in anger..... ahahahaha....
ahahaha.... ahahanson
---------------------------------------
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:w-adnRxLJcJ0rlbZ...@insightbb.com...
Chris Jones
> Chris Jones wrote:
> > "Blitzkreig" <go_elec...@spamex.com> writes:
[...]
> > > Apparently, Chris Jones is top posting at <talk.environment>,
> > > but only *reads* true flamer posts at <sci.space.policy>.
> >
> > Not true (neither part of your sentence). What article(s) in
> > talk.environment are you claiming are from me?
>
> Uh, I don't read <talk.environment>,
And yet it's "apparent" to you what I am doing in there. I think you
and I disagree on the meaning of that word, and perhaps also on the
meaning of "top posting".
The meat, and certainly the original post, of this thread are on topic
for talk.environment, and off topic to the original three groups
selected. That's all I meant.
chatnoir
Yep, ve are being terrorized into accepting clean water to drink!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/23/INGJ7K1IBS1.DTL
Clean water is symbol of the power of the people
Founding fathers could not foresee today's problems
Andrew Koppelman, David Dana
Sunday, July 23, 2006
In 1789, the founding fathers decided that Americans would have to
drink contaminated water, that New Orleans would have to sink into the
sea, and that Congress would have no power to do anything about either.
That's ridiculous, you'll say. And we agree. But that's what a near
majority of the Supreme Court, including President Bush's two new
appointees, effectively claimed in a decision handed down last month.
The decision, Rapanos vs. U.S., concerned the scope of the federal
government's power to protect wetlands under the Clean Water Act, a
statute Congress enacted in 1972 out of a recognition that the nation's
waters were not being protected from degradation by the states. Justice
Antonin Scalia, writing for four justices (including Bush's two recent
appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito),
declared that only a "continuous surface connection" to navigable
waters could authorize federal protection. A broader reading of
Congress' authority, he wrote, "presses the envelope of constitutional
validity." Evidently, broad wetlands protection of the kind that the
federal government has been implementing for many years, with at least
the implicit assent of Congress, is unconstitutional.
Standing between Scalia and an enormous constriction of the statute's
scope was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, writing for only himself,
declared that a wetland would be protected if it had a "significant
nexus" to navigable waters. He declared that whether that was so was a
technical question, on which courts should defer to regulators. Because
he provided the crucial fifth vote on the nine-member court, and
because the other four justices would have imposed no significant
restrictions on the statute, his view effectively becomes the rule. The
upshot, as Justice John Paul Stevens observed in dissent, is added
uncertainty and "additional work for all concerned parties." There will
be plenty of new work for lawyers and scientists, who will now fight
over the existence, or lack thereof, of a "significant nexus" in any
particular case.
Restricting wetlands regulation could have catastrophic consequences.
Wetlands absorb surface runoff of pollutants, thus keeping them out of
rivers and streams. They provide habitat for aquatic animals and
plants. They reduce downstream flooding by absorbing water at times of
high flow. The recent New Orleans flood illustrates the consequences of
doing without wetlands. Wetlands are a natural levee system, tempering
the surges in water levels that accompany hurricanes. But thousands of
acres of wetlands surrounding and protecting New Orleans and the Gulf
of Mexico have been destroyed over the years by uncontrolled
development. Scientists say that this loss of wetlands contributed
significantly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Does the Constitution really leave the country helpless to cope with
these dangers?
The source of the court's trouble is Article I of the Constitution,
which gives Congress limited, enumerated powers. Protection of the
environment is not one of those powers. But Congress is given the power
"to regulate Commerce ... among the several States." The Constitution
does not explain what that means. For more than a century, the Supreme
Court has adopted ever-broader interpretations of the Commerce Power,
upholding on this basis the New Deal legislation of the 1930s and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is a logic to this: Nearly all human
activity affects interstate commerce in some way. But 10 years ago, the
Rehnquist court began to strike down federal laws as exceeding
Congress' powers. The court, following a jurisprudence that seeks to
enforce the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, emphasized
that the framers never intended Congress to have unlimited power.
Justice Scalia had those decisions in mind when he suggested that broad
wetlands regulation might be unconstitutional.
It is a stretch to say that the commerce power includes the ability to
protect wetlands that have no direct connection to any river that is
used by interstate shipping. But there are two reasons why courts have
been drawn to such expansive readings. First, every advanced industrial
country in the world has found it necessary to have some national
regulations to deal with national problems, such as environmental
degradation. And second, the Constitution is extremely difficult to
amend. The result is that the federal government now exercises many
powers that the framers did not contemplate, simply because cutting off
those powers would be insanely destructive. An example is the power to
print paper money. The Constitution does not authorize paper money, and
the framers were pretty clearly opposed to any such power. But time has
proven them wrong, and a judicial decision taking away that power would
bring about the worst economic catastrophe in American history. The
self-styled "originalists" on the court, such as Scalia, have
maintained a delicate silence about these implications of their
approach.
The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no intentions
at all with respect to problems that they could not foresee. Wetlands
protection is one of them. The most pertinent such intention was the
resolution of the 1789 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention that
Congress should be able to legislate in all cases "to which the states
are separately incompetent, or ... in which the harmony of the United
States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation."
This was later revised, by a "Committee of Detail," to become the
present Article I, but no one seems to have thought that they were
changing the substance of Congress' powers, and the revision was
accepted by the convention without discussion. There is every reason to
think that, while the framers meant for there to be some limits on
Congress' power, they did not mean to incapacitate it to deal with real
problems.
Of course, there is room for disagreement about what constitutes real
problems -- and real solutions. Scalia evidently thinks the Clean Water
Act is cumbersome and inefficient, and he complains about the "burden
of federal regulation." He is entitled to his opinion. But it is not
clear why his opinion should count for more than that of Congress.
It appears that what is really driving the court these days is a
hostility to federal power, at least federal power that might burden
the "haves" in society, property owners and business owners. A
determination to cut that power back now dominates the Republican
party. And so the party tends to appoint judges who share that
hostility. That was not the view of the framers, who had had plenty of
experience with a feeble central government under the Articles of
Confederation, and who were determined not to repeat that experience.
Of course, Congress isn't required to protect the waterways. It is
always free to repeal the Clean Water Act, in whole or in part. But
Congress is very unlikely to repeal the law, because most Americans
like having clean drinking water, they like waterways that can support
fish that can be safely eaten and in which they and their children can
safely swim, and they aren't happy about Katrina. So instead,
right-wing judges get appointed to do what elected officials dare not
attempt. It is much easier, politically, for members of Congress who
share Scalia's ideology to simply acquiesce in the judicial gutting of
a federal environmental statute than for them to take the
responsibility for repealing that statute on their own.
And not only the Clean Water Act, as important as that statute is, is
at stake. The American Farm Bureau, the mining industry and other big
businesses have been waging a battle against the federal Endangered
Species Act, urging the federal courts to invalidate federal protection
of endangered species as beyond the scope of Congress' commerce power.
So far, the lower federal courts have rejected these challenges, but in
the next year or two, many believe the Supreme Court will agree to
review the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. And then,
as in Rapanos, Kennedy will likely stand between four justices
committed to preserving the federal government's role in preserving our
nation's biodiversity, and four justices who would hold that a state
government, and only a state government, has any legal authority to
decide whether an endangered species will be allowed to dwindle into
extinction.
What is really at stake here is the power, not of Congress, but of the
American people to control their destiny. The framers of the
Constitution never intended the federal government to be helpless in
the face of pressing problems such as environmental destruction.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny.
> >>
> >> <SNORT>
> >> /BAH
> >>
> >Sorry to hear you got some bad cocaine.
> >As republs do love corruption, too bad.
>
> In my state, it's the Democrats who are corrupt and
> are learning to deal with the consequences at the moment.
>
> /BAH
>
You really ought to get your cocaine from Democrat dealers, them
braying ass donkeys don't stomp on it as hard as those fart trumpeting
elephants.
So you jump to, click heels and kiss elephant ass.
William Elliot
Have a nice day with Napoleon, Hitler and Bush at Waterloo, Moscow and
Bagdad.
Riddle of the day: How come Bush's Blitzkrieg is taking sooooo long?
William Elliot
How much Hanson avocates and strives to incite violence and
how much he is in need of anger management baby sitting.
FrediFizzx
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
Because he didn't make it a four country sweep? LOL! Heck, toss in
Lebanon; he should have made it five.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Do you think that you've anything worthwhile to contribute?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Roedy Green
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
If you pro-pollution bastards had not subsidised SUVs, subsidised
gasoline at $3 a gallon to artificially stimulate demand, not started
the Iraq war to throttle the supply of oil from the #2 reserves, then
you might have been on your way to a clean, sustainable future.
You did nothing to invent new high efficiency vehicles and appliances.
The pro-environment types have done all the work. You have done
nothing but try to derail the efforts. You are the planet haters.
"Quietly tucked into Bush's budget is a big fat zero for the key EPA
civil enforcement team. This has no connection whatsoever to the
petrochemical industry dumping $48,000,000 into the Republican
campaign."
~ Greg Palast
"The spiky-haired protesters in Seattle believe there's some kind of
grand conspiracy between the corporate powers, the IMF, the World
Bank, and agencies which work to suck the blood of Bolivians and steal
the gold from Tanzania. But the tree-huggers are wrong; the details
are far more stomach-churning than they imagine."
~ Greg Palast
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
William Elliot
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:53:57 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
> >reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
> >today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
> >we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
> >our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
> >hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
> If you pro-pollution bastards had not subsidised SUVs, subsidised
> gasoline at $3 a gallon to artificially stimulate demand, not started
> the Iraq war to throttle the supply of oil from the #2 reserves, then
> you might have been on your way to a clean, sustainable future.
>
> You did nothing to invent new high efficiency vehicles and appliances.
> The pro-environment types have done all the work. You have done
> nothing but try to derail the efforts. You are the planet haters.
Look out, I've been sniffing too much air pollution.
Does strange things to your mind...
Does strange things to your body...
Free air pollution everywhere.
Everybody's using it, all the time.
We can't kick the habit.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> writes:
> >On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >> William Elliot <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny.
> >> >>
> >> >> <SNORT>
> >> >> /BAH
> >> >>
> >> >Sorry to hear you got some bad cocaine.
> >> >As republs do love corruption, too bad.
> >>
> >> In my state, it's the Democrats who are corrupt and
> >> are learning to deal with the consequences at the moment.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >>
> >Here's some humbug to go with you bah.
> >
> >You really ought to get your cocaine from Democrat dealers, them
> >braying ass donkeys don't stomp on it as hard as those fart trumpeting
> >elephants.
> >
> >So you jump to, click heels and kiss elephant ass.
>
> Do you think that you've anything worthwhile to contribute?
>
I'm a sadist satirist sharpening my claws on their furniture.
Somebody has got to bad mouth blast them back to hell.
When y'all gonna give me a radio station? A TV station?
Why them? Are they the only FCC permitted mouth frothing?
William Elliot
> "William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
> > Dear Blitzkrieg.
> > Have a nice day with Napoleon, Hitler and Bush at Waterloo, Moscow and
> > Bagdad.
> >
> > Riddle of the day: How come Bush's Blitzkrieg is taking sooooo long?
>
> Because he didn't make it a four country sweep? LOL! Heck, toss in
> Lebanon; he should have made it five.
>
Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B
chatnoir wrote:
>
>In 1789, the founding fathers decided that Americans would
>have to drink contaminated water, that New Orleans would have
>to sink into the sea, and that Congress would have no power to
>do anything about either.
>That's ridiculous, you'll say. And we agree. But that's what
>a near majority of the Supreme Court, including President Bush's
>two new appointees, effectively claimed in a decision handed down
>last month.
They are acting abstractly to pave the way for a reasonable
alternative to be presented to them.
>The decision, Rapanos vs. U.S., concerned the scope of the
>federal government's power to protect wetlands under the Clean
>Water Act, a statute Congress enacted in 1972 out of a recogni-
>tion that the nation's waters were not being protected from de-
>gradation by the states. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for
>four justices (including Bush's two recent appointees, Chief
>Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito), declared that
>only a "continuous surface connection" to navigable waters
>could authorize federal protection. A broader reading of
>Congress' authority, he wrote, "presses the envelope of con-
>stitutional validity." Evidently, broad wetlands protection
>of the kind that the federal government has been implementing
>for many years, with at least the implicit assent of Congress,
>is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Atonin Scalia, in stating that Congress' author-
ity "presses the envelope of constitutional validity" must as-
sume either that (1) Congress would become tyrannical in assum-
ing control over the wetlands issue, or (2) Some outside entity,
besides Congress would be the final arbriter in settling the
wetlands issue.
>Standing between Scalia and an enormous constriction of the
>statute's scope was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, writing for
>only himself, declared that a wetland would be protected if it
>had a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. He declared that
>whether that was so was a technical question, on which courts
>should defer to regulators. Because he provided the crucial
>fifth vote on the nine-member court, and because the other four
>justices would have imposed no significant restrictions on the
>statute, his view effectively becomes the rule. The upshot, as
>Justice John Paul Stevens observed in dissent, is added uncer-
>tainty and "additional work for all concerned parties." There
>will be plenty of new work for lawyers and scientists, who will
>now fight over the existence, or lack thereof, of a "significant
>nexus" in any particular case.
In other words, if there is money to be made, let the lawyers
and scientists decide the fate of the issue beyond what all land-
owners can agree upon, if the navigable wetlands *can be proven*
to improve the regional preservation of the natural environment.
Clearly there is a difference between the land owners and the
lawyers and scientists. Which wetlands are most worth preserving
and which wetlands are least worth preserving?
>Restricting wetlands regulation could have catastrophic conse-
>quences. Wetlands absorb surface runoff of pollutants, thus
>keeping them out of rivers and streams. They provide habitat
>for aquatic animals and plants. They reduce downstream flooding
>by absorbing water at times of high flow. The recent New Orleans
>flood illustrates the consequences of doing without wetlands.
>Wetlands are a natural levee system, tempering the surges in
>water levels that accompany hurricanes. But thousands of acres
>of wetlands surrounding and protecting New Orleans and the Gulf
>of Mexico have been destroyed over the years by uncontrolled
>development. Scientists say that this loss of wetlands contri-
>buted significantly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Aquatic animal and plant habitats are regenerable throughout
all areas of a flood plain, and flood plains are constantly
shifting as the weather changes. There are no "catastrophies"
here. Only natural events from shifting weather patterns. The
levees broke in New Orleans because the earmarked funds were
diverted into various causeway projects - and the local govern-
ment was fully aware of what was happening, but they chose to
roll the dice with Katrina than play by the laws of nature.
You can't broadly characterize "development" as "uncontrolled"
when so many lives are dependent upon a human infrastructure,
unless you are involved in reinventing that infrastructure to
something a bit more wholesome for all, like less pork barrel
highway systems with less traffic on them, while having greater
access to personal energy-efficient airborne vehicles, which,
one would guess, would have already happened by now with the
competitive nature of the automobile industry, as well as the
policing with FAA jurisdiction over the mass-transit airspace.
>Does the Constitution really leave the country helpless to
>cope with these dangers?
No, but the resistance of the reigning dominion-or-bust environ-
mentalist rusemasters will continue to play off the antiquated-
ness of the paid-for-whores who jurisdict only what has been
done in the past rather than envision a future better for all
who would rather be enlightened by advanced technology than
re-enamoured or enslaved by it.
>The source of the court's trouble is Article I of the Consti-
>tution, which gives Congress limited, enumerated powers. Pro-
>tection of the environment is not one of those powers. But
>Congress is given the power "to regulate Commerce ... among
>the several States." The Constitution does not explain what
>that means. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has ad-
>opted ever-broader interpretations of the Commerce Power,
>upholding on this basis the New Deal legislation of the 1930s
>and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is a logic to this:
>Nearly all human activity affects interstate commerce in some
>way. But 10 years ago, the Rehnquist court began to strike
>down federal laws as exceeding Congress' powers. The court,
>following a jurisprudence that seeks to enforce the intentions
>of the framers of the Constitution, emphasized that the framers
>never intended Congress to have unlimited power. Justice Scalia
>had those decisions in mind when he suggested that broad wet-
>lands regulation might be unconstitutional.
Regulating commerce with the New Deal legislation creates mob
rule and populist infighting, without Taft-Hartley protections
on the professional status of Engineers involved with the design
and manufacture of revolutionary technologies, even to the point
of a *witness protection program* for the enablers of such tech-
nologies. Many inventors and engineers have been threatened,
harassed, and even murdered because their ideas created too much
anomalous activity with the circumstances surrounding their
acquisition of patented technology. Interstate commerce affects
human activity through competing systems of trade, and human ac-
tivity is not and should never be the sole influence on the type
of commerce used to effect trade. The power of Congress should
expand alongside of increasing technology, as increasing complex-
ities surrounding the use and delivery of the technology affect
other markets, as well as forging new ones. It is too much to say
that Congress would have unlimited power, if the entire economy
is routinely adapting itself to more soothing innovations. How
about a witness protection program for members of Congress?
>It is a stretch to say that the commerce power includes the ab-
>ility to protect wetlands that have no direct connection to any
>river that is used by interstate shipping. But there are two
>reasons why courts have been drawn to such expansive readings.
>First, every advanced industrial country in the world has found
>it necessary to have some national regulations to deal with na-
>tional problems, such as environmental degradation. And second,
>the Constitution is extremely difficult to amend. The result is
>that the federal government now exercises many powers that the
>framers did not contemplate, simply because cutting off those
>powers would be insanely destructive. An example is the power
>to print paper money. The Constitution does not authorize paper
>money, and the framers were pretty clearly opposed to any such
>power. But time has proven them wrong, and a judicial decision
>taking away that power would bring about the worst economic
>catastrophe in American history. The self-styled "originalists"
>on the court, such as Scalia, have maintained a delicate silence
>about these implications of their approach.
"National regulations" are not to be confused with locally dis-
connected wetlands, unless you've identified a particular wet-
land as having a negative impact on a greater part of the sur-
rounding area than the connected parts of wetlands, by virtue
of some kind of "environmental degradation" that would probably
warrant some further investigation. It would seem now, that more
than 60% of the country is in drought (Look at N. Dakota's dust
bowl). Maybe HAARP could divert the rain there.
The Constitutional powers of our present government is entirely
contradictory to what the framers intended, not contemplated!
They intended for there never to be a Federal establishment,
but that the Christianity practiced in America would be
"enlightened" (John Jay), "civilized" (John Quincy Adams), and
"rational" (John Adams). However, the Fed prints too many
"notes" that represent a debt that is owed by the government,
and your accusation that a "judicial decision taking away that
power" has come too late in the face of already having acquired
that debt over the past 70 or so years since the "New Deal".
Your catastrophe is already "here".
By "originalist" I would assume that you are referring to those
who originally wrote the Constitution. The Original Intent was
for the benefit of the Christian religion. It is no wonder that
Justice Scalia might be "delicately silent", if he does not
wish to become victimized by the laxness of the current
citizenry, who patronize the value of money rather than uphold
the positive law.
>The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no in-
>tentions at all with respect to problems that they could not
>foresee. Wetlands protection is one of them. The most pertinent
>such intention was the resolution of the 1789 Philadelphia
>Constitutional Convention that Congress should be able to leg-
>islate in all cases "to which the states are separately incom-
>petent, or ... in which the harmony of the United States may be
>interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation."
>This was later revised, by a "Committee of Detail," to become
>the present Article I, but no one seems to have thought that
>they were changing the substance of Congress' powers, and the
>revision was accepted by the convention without discussion.
>There is every reason to think that, while the framers meant
>for there to be some limits on Congress' power, they did not
>mean to incapacitate it to deal with real problems.
Certainly the framers could not forsee exploring the heavens,
could they? Certainly the framers could not forsee non-lethal
nuclear propulsion, could they? Certainly the framers could
not see an orgone accumulator at work, could they? Certainly
the framers could not forsee Tesla's Pierce Arrow in motion,
could they? They also didn't see Rife Scalar Technology, did
they? Or Engineer Howard Johnson's Permanent Magnet Motor?
Or Edwin Gray's Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine?
Or T. Townsend Brown's Electrogravitic Disk? Or a Desaliniza-
tion Plant? - Yet you would assume that Congress has a real
problem on its hands when dealing with the positive aspects
for accrediting such technologies as being inharmonious to
the rest of dumbed-down citizenry? That's really unfortunate
for the rest of government, if they'd rather remain
"unenlightened". It would seem that the framers were not the
incapacitators that modern day Federalists would like
to assume.
>Of course, there is room for disagreement about what consti-
>tutes real problems -- and real solutions. Scalia evidently
>thinks the Clean Water Act is cumbersome and inefficient,
>and he complains about the "burden of federal regulation."
>He is entitled to his opinion. But it is not clear why his
>opinion should count for more than that of Congress.
Maybe his opinion is based on the way things are accomplished
in Congress rather than being carried out efficiently and
effectively, being pork-barreled in places like New Orleans,
and all the other defining pork-pie states involved. Maybe
there's just too much oversight involved with keeping track
of who's adhering to policy. It's just a money grab.
>It appears that what is really driving the court these days is
>a hostility to federal power, at least federal power that might
>burden the "haves" in society, property owners and business
>owners. A determination to cut that power back now dominates
>the Republican party. And so the party tends to appoint judges
>who share that hostility. That was not the view of the framers,
>who had had plenty of experience with a feeble central govern-
>ment under the Articles of Confederation, and who were deter-
>mined not to repeat that experience.
In referring to the "haves" you are insinuating the specific
group of people who are intent on using their properties and
businesses for reasons strictly other than wetlands protection,
since *they* cannot be called to be the ones who are absolutely
responsible for the wetlands degradation for either one or two
reasons: (1) Others livlihoods should have no effect on their
own (Partially a moot issue because it has not been determined
exactly whose territories are at stake here), or (2) Businesses
have no reason to believe that the larger picture of a regional
success has more to do with saving the wetlands as opposed to
achieving personal gain.
It's one thing to be completely hostile, and another to exer-
cise a solution that bests all attempts to invalidate an advan-
ced technological approach to solving the urban sprawl through-
out wetland areas.
>Of course, Congress isn't required to protect the waterways.
>It is always free to repeal the Clean Water Act, in whole or
>in part. But Congress is very unlikely to repeal the law,
>because most Americans like having clean drinking water, they
>like waterways that can support fish that can be safely eaten
>and in which they and their children can safely swim, and they
>aren't happy about Katrina. So instead, right-wing judges get
>appointed to do what elected officials dare not attempt. It
>is much easier, politically, for members of Congress who share
>Scalia's ideology to simply acquiesce in the judicial gutting
>of a federal environmental statute than for them to take the
>responsibility for repealing that statute on their own.
No, Congress isn't required to protect, so why not start a
professional civilian works program? After all, it's just an
engineering problem, isn't it? The consumable fish population
could be grown in large breeding tanks, just like they do
along the coast of Texas. Most of the kids today can still
swim along clean beaches, swim pools, and lakes. The Clean
Water Act is a blame machine. Blame the right-wing entrepreneur
for neglecting the poor, the neglected, pork-barrel state from
saving itself, because the Clean Water Act was supposed to
exist only as a works program from big government, rather
than the result of a positive law being enacted. Nobody is
acquiescing the Taft Hartley Act, which actually gave engineers
some legal protection from those who thought themselves
elitist, but it is not being "enforced", mainly because of
poor education amongst the very leaders who should be
espousing it.
>And not only the Clean Water Act, as important as that sta-
>tute is, is at stake. The American Farm Bureau, the mining
>industry and other big businesses have been waging a battle
>against the federal Endangered Species Act, urging the fed-
>eral courts to invalidate federal protection of endangered
>species as beyond the scope of Congress' commerce power.
>So far, the lower federal courts have rejected these chal-
>lenges, but in the next year or two, many believe the
>Supreme Court will agree to review the constitutionality of
>the Endangered Species Act. And then, as in Rapanos, Kennedy
>will likely stand between four justices committed to preser-
>ving the federal government's role in preserving our nation's >biodiversity, and four justices who would hold that a state
>government, and only a state government, has any legal auth-
>ority to decide whether an endangered species will be al-
>lowed to dwindle into extinction.
Just as species are disappearing every day, there are more
species of life coming into existence that are never seen by
the naked eye. It's just the ones that are seen disappearing
that are made issues of. Yet there is a limit to what can
be viewed as "total neglect" for the surrounding environment,
but most of those cases have already been established, and
the rest are too few and far between to validate the worth
of having a bloated Federal Endangered Species Act. Besides,
isn't the engineering entrepreneur a more endangered species
than the snail darter? The parables of Jesus always illustra-
ted competitive capitalism at work, not monopolistic capit-
alism. For example, recall the landowners response to the
salary dispute: Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish
with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because
I am generous? The same may be said of the whole of techno-
logy. Inventions, like species, take on a life of their own.
When an advance is made, the earlier version becomes defunct.
However in this case, it is the political machinery of the
state, and not more responsible technology, that dictates
a policed ruse on targeted opponents, rather than life-saving
technologies. Remember what Jesus said: "..greater is He that
is in you, than he that is in the world" (1 John 4:4). The
same is true today!
>What is really at stake here is the power, not of Congress,
>but of the American people to control their destiny. The
>framers of the Constitution never intended the federal gov-
>ernment to be helpless in the face of pressing problems such
>as environmental destruction.
Nor did they prescribe that every citizen have the where-
with-all to intuitively grasp the spiritual effort it would
require to rebuild the Garden of Eden in such a way that all
people, saved as well as unsaved, could enjoy eating of the
fruits of the Tree of Life forever. That would be impossible.
tadchem
G. L. Bradford wrote:
> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny.
There are a *LOT* of groups with the same agenda.
Simply put, they want a world where *everybody* is required by law to
do what *they* decide is best for all of us.
I refer to the environmentalists, the animal rights groups, the
abortion rights groups, the peace activists, the anti-smoking lobby,
the anti-capitalists, the purveyors of political correctness, the
global warming alarmists, the ESC pushers, the public health watchdogs,
and others too numerous to name.
Fortunately, many of these groups are not really talking to each other.
The only ones listening to even the majority of them are the political
panderers who are cynically persuing the same objective, and planning
to use these 'useful idiots' for *their* own ends.
I do so enjoy it when they get crosswise with each other, as they
occasionally do.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Christopher
Because the wheels have come off the wagon.
--
Christopher
<><><> Who cares who wins !!! <><><>
jmfb...@aol.com
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote:
>
>G. L. Bradford wrote:
>> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny.
>
>There are a *LOT* of groups with the same agenda.
>
>Simply put, they want a world where *everybody* is required by law to
>do what *they* decide is best for all of us.
>
>I refer to the environmentalists, the animal rights groups, the
>abortion rights groups, the peace activists, the anti-smoking lobby,
>the anti-capitalists, the purveyors of political correctness, the
>global warming alarmists, the ESC pushers,
Yea! Bring back TECO!
> the public health watchdogs,
>and others too numerous to name.
You avoided naming the groups that have a lot of people in them :-).
What is an ESC?
/BAH
Mark L. Fergerson
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making Man
>>captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
>>authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
>>stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
> The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing but unabash
> greed. Making people captive to money as the measure of all things human
> and divine in a totalitarian big brother state.
And the Socialist Democrat agenda is the same, except substituting
obeisance as the currency. What's your point?
> The Earth has never once in its history had a long term not corrupt
> government. Corruption has always been wishing you a lousy day.
Ah. Right you are.
>> The normal condition of the world for millions of years now has been 'Ice
> Chill out, you're not normal.
"Normal" depends who's doing the defining.
Besides, I still say the evidence doesn't show we're heading towards
Earth-as-Venus; it shows we're just coming out of a "long Spring" with
occasional episodes of "Winter" into a "long Summer" with occasional
episodes of "Autumn". On geological time scales, of course. Not much we
can do about it (or did to make it happen) but plan ahead. Get rid of
most of your winter gear, for one thing; you won't need it for another
few dozen kyr or so.
Mark L. Fergerson
wolfb...@mindspring.com
By developers = Yes!
>
> >Restricting wetlands regulation could have catastrophic conse-
> >quences. Wetlands absorb surface runoff of pollutants, thus
> >keeping them out of rivers and streams. They provide habitat
> >for aquatic animals and plants. They reduce downstream flooding
> >by absorbing water at times of high flow. The recent New Orleans
> >flood illustrates the consequences of doing without wetlands.
> >Wetlands are a natural levee system, tempering the surges in
> >water levels that accompany hurricanes. But thousands of acres
> >of wetlands surrounding and protecting New Orleans and the Gulf
> >of Mexico have been destroyed over the years by uncontrolled
> >development. Scientists say that this loss of wetlands contri-
> >buted significantly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
>
> Aquatic animal and plant habitats are regenerable throughout
> all areas of a flood plain
In the channalized and developed flood plains we have today with dams
upstream controling the water - You are a joke!
, and flood plains are constantly
> shifting as the weather changes.
Not with the dams upstream! A lot of communities essentially take
their streams and put a concrete or rock bottom in them and put rip
rock along the sides! During a storm theis causes the water to run off
in the channel with no interaction with the flood plain - It may flood
the communities down stream of course!
There are no "catastrophies"
> here. Only natural events from shifting weather patterns.
Patterns don't shift with dams and rip rocked streams!
The
> levees broke in New Orleans because the earmarked funds were
> diverted into various causeway projects - and the local govern-
> ment was fully aware of what was happening, but they chose to
> roll the dice with Katrina than play by the laws of nature.
One can say Kartina happened becuse the Mississippi is channelized and
runs the sediment off into the ocean instead of depositing it on
protecting wetlands also - and the wetlands are disappearing also! So,
Lousiana needs more than Republican canidates and Blue-dog Democrats!
> You can't broadly characterize "development" as "uncontrolled"
> when so many lives are dependent upon a human infrastructure,
> unless you are involved in reinventing that infrastructure to
> something a bit more wholesome for all, like less pork barrel
> highway systems with less traffic on them, while having greater
> access to personal energy-efficient airborne vehicles, which,
> one would guess, would have already happened by now with the
> competitive nature of the automobile industry, as well as the
> policing with FAA jurisdiction over the mass-transit airspace.
And this has what to do with wetlands! I beleive all Republicans voted
to rebuild the trent Lott railroad which was allready in place!~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701551.html
>
> >Does the Constitution really leave the country helpless to
> >cope with these dangers?
>
> No, but the resistance of the reigning dominion-or-bust environ-
> mentalist rusemasters will continue to play off the antiquated-
> ness of the paid-for-whores who jurisdict only what has been
> done in the past rather than envision a future better for all
> who would rather be enlightened by advanced technology than
> re-enamoured or enslaved by it.
Future better for all? You would have to define that!
>
> >The source of the court's trouble is Article I of the Consti-
> >tution, which gives Congress limited, enumerated powers. Pro-
> >tection of the environment is not one of those powers. But
> >Congress is given the power "to regulate Commerce ... among
> >the several States." The Constitution does not explain what
> >that means. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has ad-
> >opted ever-broader interpretations of the Commerce Power,
> >upholding on this basis the New Deal legislation of the 1930s
> >and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is a logic to this:
> >Nearly all human activity affects interstate commerce in some
> >way. But 10 years ago, the Rehnquist court began to strike
> >down federal laws as exceeding Congress' powers. The court,
> >following a jurisprudence that seeks to enforce the intentions
> >of the framers of the Constitution, emphasized that the framers
> >never intended Congress to have unlimited power. Justice Scalia
> >had those decisions in mind when he suggested that broad wet-
> >lands regulation might be unconstitutional.
>
> Regulating commerce with the New Deal legislation creates mob
> rule and populist infighting,
Oh we are much better off with CEO and Billionaire rule!
without Taft-Hartley protections
> on the professional status of Engineers involved with the design
> and manufacture of revolutionary technologies,
Such as the Big Dig in Mass.?
even to the point
> of a *witness protection program* for the enablers of such tech-
> nologies.
Congress and Industry are seeing to it that whistle blowers are outed
and prosecuted!:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=711
LACKBALLING WHISTLEBLOWERS IS ILLEGAL, COURT RULES - Canceling a
Vacancy Announcement Faulted in Rare Federal Circuit Victory
Washington, DC - Federal agencies may not cancel a vacancy
announcement as a means of refusing to hire a job applicant because the
applicant has a history of blowing the whistle, according to a decision
this week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The
ruling expands coverage of the federal Whistleblower Protection Act and
overruled a longstanding policy of the civil service court, called the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
The decision came in the case of James Ruggieri, an electrical
engineer, who was apparently selected to fill a vacancy at the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), an arm of the Interior Department which
collects royalties from oil and gas production on public lands.
Ruggieri was later told by an MMS official that he would not be hired
because he had been a whistleblower at a previous position in the U.S.
Coast Guard. MMS then cancelled the vacancy announcement, waited a few
months and reposted the same job.
Armed with a tape of his conversation with the MMS official, Ruggieri
filed a complaint of whistleblower retaliation with the U.S. Office of
Special Counsel which, after 18 months, ruled that the tape recording
was not sufficient evidence of a retaliatory motive by MMS. Ruggieri
then appealed to the MSPB which ultimately ruled that since MMS had
cancelled the vacancy announcement there was no "personnel action"
and therefore it was not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Represented by John J. Rigby of the Arlington, VA firm of McInroy &
Rigby, Ruggieri took his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the
MSPB. Judge William Bryson, writing for a unanimous court, held that:
"To endorse the Board's [MSPB] interpretation of the statute would
immunize an agency's decision not to hire a whistleblower, so long as
the agency was willing simply not to fill the position for which the
whistleblower had applied, even if the agency's conduct was plainly
motivated by whistleblowing activity. This case illustrates the
potential mischief that could be caused by the Board's
interpretation."
"The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was persuaded by our
arguments that MSPB was ignoring the plain language of the statute in
this and previous cases," said Rigby. "This case is an important
victory for whistleblowers."
The Federal Circuit, which sent the case back to MSPB for "further
proceedings," has historically been considered unsympathetic to
whistleblower claims. According to figures compiled by the Government
Accountability Project, a non-profit whistleblower defense
organization, the Federal Circuit has, prior to this decision, ruled in
favor of a whistleblower in only one of 119 cases since 1994. Congress
is now considering legislation to remove whistleblower jurisdiction
from the Federal Circuit and allow "all circuit review" in which
cases would go to the U.S. circuit court from the region where they
originated.
"This case is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the
federal whistleblower protection system in that Jim Ruggieri has been
waiting more than five years in order to finally get his day in
court," stated Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) which represented Ruggieri through
the Office of Special Counsel investigation. "Even armed with a
smoking gun tape recording, Jim Ruggieri may have to wait years more
before he finally prevails in this case."
Many inventors and engineers have been threatened,
> harassed, and even murdered because their ideas created too much
> anomalous activity with the circumstances surrounding their
> acquisition of patented technology. Interstate commerce affects
> human activity through competing systems of trade, and human ac-
> tivity is not and should never be the sole influence on the type
> of commerce used to effect trade. The power of Congress should
> expand alongside of increasing technology, as increasing complex-
> ities surrounding the use and delivery of the technology affect
> other markets, as well as forging new ones. It is too much to say
> that Congress would have unlimited power, if the entire economy
> is routinely adapting itself to more soothing innovations. How
> about a witness protection program for members of Congress?
I see no muzzeling of Republican members of Congress on C-Span!
Local enities are often controled by land use members put there by real
estate boards!
>Maybe HAARP could divert the rain there.
Maybe Nonobots should be released!
>
> The Constitutional powers of our present government is entirely
> contradictory to what the framers intended, not contemplated!
So, you say!
> They intended for there never to be a Federal establishment,
Whiskey rebellion Put down
Lewis and Clark expedition sent out
It goes on and on!
> but that the Christianity practiced in America would be
> "enlightened" (John Jay), "civilized" (John Quincy Adams), and
> "rational" (John Adams).
Slavery, disposession of the Indians -= enlightened????
However, the Fed prints too many
> "notes" that represent a debt that is owed by the government,
Whcih your Libertarian Republicans add to all the time = Clinton had a
surplus and was paying down the debt!
> and your accusation that a "judicial decision taking away that
> power" has come too late in the face of already having acquired
> that debt over the past 70 or so years since the "New Deal".
> Your catastrophe is already "here".
WWII was a justified debt - show me the debt of the depression era!
>
> By "originalist" I would assume that you are referring to those
> who originally wrote the Constitution. The Original Intent was
> for the benefit of the Christian religion.
Who says - todays fundamentalists?
This aurthor says no!:
http://www.booktv.org/PublicLives/index.asp?segID=7075&schedID=439
On Saturday, July 29 at 8:00 am and Sunday, July 30 at 2:00 am
Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington
Peter Henriques
Watch
Description: Peter Henriques seeks to humanize President George
Washington. He describes President Washington's mistakes, his
sensitivity to criticism, and his pragmatist way of governing. During
his discussion, he examines George Washington's relationships with
Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr.
Henriques also discusses George Washington's contradictory views on
slavery and his lack of religious references. Mr. Henriques' book was
developed from a series of lectures at Gatbys Tavern. Library of
Virginia located in Richmond hosted this event.
Author Bio: Peter Henriques is a professor of history at George Mason
University. He received his Ph. D. from the University of Virginia. He
is the author of "The Final Struggle Between George Washington and the
Grim King: Washington's Attitude Toward Death and an Afterlife," and
the cover article of the Winter 1999 edition of Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography. Mr. Henriques is also a lecturer on the History
Channel and a consultant for an A&E "Biography" episode on George
Washington.
Publisher: UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PRESS P.O. Box 400318
Charlottesville, VA 22904
It is no wonder that
> Justice Scalia might be "delicately silent", if he does not
> wish to become victimized by the laxness of the current
> citizenry, who patronize the value of money rather than uphold
> the positive law.
That seems to be Scalias problem more than the general populous!
>
> >The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no in-
> >tentions at all with respect to problems that they could not
> >foresee. Wetlands protection is one of them. The most pertinent
> >such intention was the resolution of the 1789 Philadelphia
> >Constitutional Convention that Congress should be able to leg-
> >islate in all cases "to which the states are separately incom-
> >petent, or ... in which the harmony of the United States may be
> >interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation."
> >This was later revised, by a "Committee of Detail," to become
> >the present Article I, but no one seems to have thought that
> >they were changing the substance of Congress' powers, and the
> >revision was accepted by the convention without discussion.
> >There is every reason to think that, while the framers meant
> >for there to be some limits on Congress' power, they did not
> >mean to incapacitate it to deal with real problems.
>
> Certainly the framers could not forsee exploring the heavens,
> could they?
They were flawed?= vat does the Bible say on it = it was flawed?
Certainly the framers could not forsee non-lethal
> nuclear propulsion, could they?
Did they see nuclear anything?
Certainly the framers could
> not see an orgone accumulator at work, could they? Certainly
> the framers could not forsee Tesla's Pierce Arrow in motion,
> could they? They also didn't see Rife Scalar Technology, did
> they? Or Engineer Howard Johnson's Permanent Magnet Motor?
> Or Edwin Gray's Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine?
> Or T. Townsend Brown's Electrogravitic Disk? Or a Desaliniza-
> tion Plant? - Yet you would assume that Congress has a real
> problem on its hands when dealing with the positive aspects
> for accrediting such technologies as being inharmonious to
> the rest of dumbed-down citizenry? That's really unfortunate
> for the rest of government, if they'd rather remain
> "unenlightened". It would seem that the framers were not the
> incapacitators that modern day Federalists would like
> to assume.
I have watched C-Span = the Congress is as dumbed down as the common
man in the US!
>
> >Of course, there is room for disagreement about what consti-
> >tutes real problems -- and real solutions. Scalia evidently
> >thinks the Clean Water Act is cumbersome and inefficient,
> >and he complains about the "burden of federal regulation."
> >He is entitled to his opinion. But it is not clear why his
> >opinion should count for more than that of Congress.
>
> Maybe his opinion is based on the way things are accomplished
> in Congress rather than being carried out efficiently and
> effectively, being pork-barreled in places like New Orleans,
You say trent Lotts Railroad was not Pork Barrel? - You say Stevens
road to nowhere was not pork barrel?
> and all the other defining pork-pie states involved. Maybe
> there's just too much oversight involved with keeping track
> of who's adhering to policy. It's just a money grab.
For the Republicans in power! Try the Republican Machine of the 1880's
and 1890's also!
>
> >Of course, Congress isn't required to protect the waterways.
> >It is always free to repeal the Clean Water Act, in whole or
> >in part. But Congress is very unlikely to repeal the law,
> >because most Americans like having clean drinking water, they
> >like waterways that can support fish that can be safely eaten
> >and in which they and their children can safely swim, and they
> >aren't happy about Katrina. So instead, right-wing judges get
> >appointed to do what elected officials dare not attempt. It
> >is much easier, politically, for members of Congress who share
> >Scalia's ideology to simply acquiesce in the judicial gutting
> >of a federal environmental statute than for them to take the
> >responsibility for repealing that statute on their own.
>
> No, Congress isn't required to protect, so why not start a
> professional civilian works program? After all, it's just an
> engineering problem, isn't it?
Nope!
The consumable fish population
> could be grown in large breeding tanks, just like they do
> along the coast of Texas.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/9837/features-carrel2.php
headline:
Killer Salmon
Farm-raised Atlantic salmon are spreading disease and genetic weakness
throughout Puget Sound and threatening to destroy native salmon in the
process.
By Chris Carrel
Veteran gillnetter Pete Knutson has hauled countless salmon out of
Puget Sound since he began plying the local waters in 1972. So imagine
his surprise one night in 1992, when up came a dozen Atlantic
salmon-easily distinguishable from the native species by the large
dark splotches on their gill covers. As their name suggests, these fish
should have been cruising North Atlantic waters; Knutson caught them in
Seattle's Elliott Bay.
With native salmon on the wane, you might think Knutson was happy to
find another breed of salmon to catch. You'd be dead wrong. When he
mentions Atlantic salmon, Knutson's voice takes on the same disgusted
tone Seattleites use to discuss transplanted California real estate
developers: "They're like goldfish."
Knutson and his fellow adepts regard Atlantics as inferior because they
come not from nature but from floating fish feedlots-one of the
net-pen "farms" around Puget Sound. Salmon farmers raise Atlantic
salmon because they grow faster and fatter in captivity and are more
docile than our native salmon.
Aquaculture proponents tout salmon farming in general as an economic
opportunity for depressed coastal communities. The industry's critics,
however, argue that salmon aquaculture has created a worldwide glut of
salmon, lowering profits and stealing market share from commercial
fishermen. "They've really pushed the entire [commercial salmon]
industry to the brink," says Knutson, who is now a full-time sociology
professor and only part-time salmon fisherman.
But commercial competition is the least of opponents' concerns. Fish
farms are messy operations that dump waste into Puget Sound, and
escaped fish are like "smart bombs," says Knutson, delivering disease,
predation, and competition "right into the bedrooms of wild salmon." If
there's one thing our already hammered wild fish don't need, say
critics of the farms, it's another salmon-killing industry. But the
farms are well entrenched here, and they're looking to expand.
Breeding Pestilence and Pollution ... (cont)
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20024316.html
Most of the kids today can still
> swim along clean beaches, swim pools, and lakes.
That is a joke!
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_4_46/ai_n6126692
The Clean
> Water Act is a blame machine. Blame the right-wing entrepreneur
> for neglecting the poor, the neglected, pork-barrel state from
> saving itself, because the Clean Water Act was supposed to
> exist only as a works program from big government, rather
> than the result of a positive law being enacted. Nobody is
> acquiescing the Taft Hartley Act, which actually gave engineers
> some legal protection from those who thought themselves
> elitist, but it is not being "enforced", mainly because of
> poor education amongst the very leaders who should be
> espousing it.
That is a joke! Until legislation was enacted rivers actually caught
on fire from pollution!
1969 The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland catches fire, burning two railroad
bridges beyond use and bringing national attention to water quality
issue
>
> >And not only the Clean Water Act, as important as that sta-
> >tute is, is at stake. The American Farm Bureau, the mining
> >industry and other big businesses have been waging a battle
> >against the federal Endangered Species Act, urging the fed-
> >eral courts to invalidate federal protection of endangered
> >species as beyond the scope of Congress' commerce power.
> >So far, the lower federal courts have rejected these chal-
> >lenges, but in the next year or two, many believe the
> >Supreme Court will agree to review the constitutionality of
> >the Endangered Species Act. And then, as in Rapanos, Kennedy
> >will likely stand between four justices committed to preser-
> >ving the federal government's role in preserving our nation's >biodiversity, and four justices who would hold that a state
> >government, and only a state government, has any legal auth-
> >ority to decide whether an endangered species will be al-
> >lowed to dwindle into extinction.
>
>
> Just as species are disappearing every day, there are more
> species of life coming into existence that are never seen by
> the naked eye.
Show me one example of a new species coming into existence?
>It's just the ones that are seen disappearing
> that are made issues of. Yet there is a limit to what can
> be viewed as "total neglect" for the surrounding environment,
> but most of those cases have already been established, and
> the rest are too few and far between to validate the worth
> of having a bloated Federal Endangered Species Act.
B.O.:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0720-08.htm
ublished on Thursday, July 20, 2006 by the Independent / UK
Earth Faces 'Catastrophic Loss of Species'
by Steve Connor
Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species
threatened with imminent extinction - a global emergency demanding
urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world's most eminent
biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a
political framework to save the planet.
The planet is losing species faster than at any time since 65 million
years ago, when the earth was hit by an enormous asteroid that wiped
out thousands of animals and plants, including the dinosaurs.
Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming
extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal
"background" extinction rate - and say this is all due to human
activity.
The call for action comes from some of the most distinguished
scientists in the field, such as Georgina Mace of the UK Institute of
Zoology; Peter Raven, the head of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St
Louis, and Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank. "For the
sake of the planet, the biodiversity science community had to create a
way to get organised, to co-ordinate its work across disciplines and
together, with one clear voice, advise governments on steps to halt the
potentially catastrophic loss of species already occurring," Dr Watson
said.
In a joint declaration, published today in Nature, the scientists say
that the earth is on the verge of a biodiversity catastrophe and that
only a global political initiative stands a chance of stemming the
loss. They say: "There is growing recognition that the diversity of
life on earth, including the variety of genes, species and ecosystems,
is an irreplaceable natural heritage crucial to human well-being and
sustainable development. There is also clear scientific evidence that
we are on the verge of a major biodiversity crisis. Virtually all
aspects of biodiversity are in steep decline and a large number of
populations and species are likely to become extinct this century.
"Despite this evidence, biodiversity is still consistently undervalued
and given inadequate weight in both private and public decisions. There
is an urgent need to bridge the gap between science and policy by
creating an international body of biodiversity experts," they say.
More than a decade ago, Edward O Wilson, the Harvard naturalist, first
estimated that about 30,000 species were going extinct each year - an
extinction rate of about three an hour. Further research has confirmed
that just about every group of animals and plants - from mosses and
ferns to palm trees, frogs, and monkeys - is experiencing an
unprecedented loss of diversity.
Scientists estimate that 12 per cent of all birds, 23 per cent of
mammals, a quarter of conifers, a third of amphibians and more than
half of all palm trees are threatened with imminent extinction. Climate
change alone could lead to the further extinction of between 15 and 37
per cent of all species by the end of the century, the scientists say:
"Because biodiversity loss is essentially irreversible, it poses
serious threats to sustainable development and the quality of life of
future generations."
There have been five previous mass extinctions in the 3.5 billion-year
history of life on earth. All are believed to have been caused by major
geophysical events that halted photosynthesis, such as an asteroid
collision or the mass eruption of supervolcanoes. The present "sixth
wave" of extinction began with the migration of modern humans out of
Africa about 100,000 years ago. It accelerated with the invention of
agriculture 10,000 years ago and began to worsen with the development
of industry in the 18th century.
Anne Larigauderie, executive director of Diversitas, a Paris-based
conservation group, said that the situation was now so grave that an
international body with direct links with global leaders was essential.
"The point is to establish an international mechanism that will provide
regular and independent scientific advice on biodiversity," Dr
Larigauderie said. "We know that extinction is a natural phenomenon but
the rate of extinction is now between 100 and 1,000 times higher than
the background rate. It is an unprecedented loss."
The scientists believe that a body similar to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change could help governments to tackle the continuing
loss of species. "Biodiversity is much more than counting species. It's
crucial to the functioning of the planet and the loss of species is
extremely serious," Dr Larigauderie said. "Everywhere we look, we are
losing the fabric of life. It's a major crisis."
Species under threat
Land mammals
The first comprehensive inventory of land mammals in 1996 found a
quarter, including the Iberian lynx were in danger of extinction. The
situation has worsened since.
Reptiles & amphibians
The Chinese alligator is the most endangered crocodilian - a survey in
1999 found just 150. Frogs, toads, newts and salamanders are the most
threatened land vertebrates.
Birds
One in five species are believed to be in danger of extinction; that
amounts to about 2,000 of the 9,775 named species. Most are at risk
from logging, intensive agriculture, trapping and habitat encroachment.
Many experts believe the Philippine eagle and wandering albatross could
become extinct this century.
Marine life
The oceans were thought to be immune from the activities of man on
land, but this is no longer true. Pollution, overfishing, loss of
marine habitats and global warming have a dramatic impact on biological
diversity. More than 100 species of fish, including the basking shark
are on the red list of threatened species.
Plants
Many plants have yet to be formally described, classified and named -
and some are being lost before they have been discovered by scientists.
Plants of every type are being lost.
Insects & invertebrates
Many insects are wiped out by pesticide-reliant intensive agriculture.
Others, such as the partula tree snails of Tahiti are menaced by
invasive species.
> Besides,
> isn't the engineering entrepreneur a more endangered species
> than the snail darter?
How so?
The parables of Jesus always illustra-
> ted competitive capitalism at work, not monopolistic capit-
> alism. For example, recall the landowners response to the
> salary dispute: Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish
> with what is my own?
Jesus thought this was moral?:
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:24
Apopears there are some moral problems here!
Or is your eye envious because
> I am generous? The same may be said of the whole of techno-
> logy. Inventions, like species, take on a life of their own.
Your inventing species?
> When an advance is made, the earlier version becomes defunct.
SUCH AS?
>
> >What is really at stake here is the power, not of Congress,
> >but of the American people to control their destiny. The
> >framers of the Constitution never intended the federal gov-
> >ernment to be helpless in the face of pressing problems such
> >as environmental destruction.
>
> Nor did they prescribe that every citizen have the where-
> with-all to intuitively grasp the spiritual effort it would
> require to rebuild the Garden of Eden in such a way that all
> people, saved as well as unsaved, could enjoy eating of the
> fruits of the Tree of Life forever. That would be impossible.
Bedazzled (1967 - The garden of Eden was a boggy swamp just south of
Croydon. You can see it over there.
ianpa...@gmail.com
I will tell you what worries me about environmentalism. Basically we
are told that if we stop flying and drive at 90km/h everything will be
fine and dandy. Sme of the remarks about Hilter, Naopleon, Moscow, Bush
and Baghdad rather miss the point. In fact driving at 90km/h LEADS to
facihsm. Let me explain why. The Third World, in particular India and
China will be wanting the same standard of living as we have, and that
cannot be provided simply be greenery.
The West not flying and driving at 90km/h will just about produce
sustainability. However the West will then be forced to prevent the
development of anyone else. Heil Hitler! Heil Bush!
We not only need sustainability we also require EXPANDABILITY. The only
way to achieve this is by technological progress. Now technological
progress will come anyway. Two points.
1) We can by having programs of key technological development shorten
the cycle.
2) Greenery is in fact specifically against technological progress.
Look at Nuclear Power. The West, at the instigation of greenery, gave
up a perfectly sound program.
hanson
news:1154229371.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
[hanson]
>> [I took sci.physics.relativity out, because the Einstein dingleberries
> Yep, ve are being terrorized into accepting clean water to drink!
>
.... by having been brain washed by the green turds & green shits
to buy bottled water 2x the price of gasoline. You can see hordes
of little green idiots hanging out everywhere nursing on the nipple
of their water bottle... The class 1 and 2 enviros have managed to
bring the adults of an entire nation back into a metal state of
infancy... ahahahaha... No wonder the Neocons (Pentagon code
for Jews) and the Evangelicals can live out their spiritual
perversions by goading Bush into wars... and then to cry about it.
The green water babies they have produced don't care as long
as they have their water bottle to suck on.... ahahahaha.....
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
>
[chat noir]
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/23/INGJ7K1IBS1.DTL
> Clean water is symbol of the power of the people
> What is really at stake here is the power, not of Congress, but of the
> American people to control their destiny. The framers of the
> Constitution never intended the federal government to be helpless in
> the face of pressing problems such as environmental destruction.
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... yeah, right!... ahahahahaha.....
Now, go nurse your water bottle and suck!... and keep sucking....
Thanks for the laughs,
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
>> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
>> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
... and surely you did, Elliot, which even rhymes nicely with idiot.
ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
>> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> >If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>> >reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>> >today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>> >we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>> >our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>> >hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>>
>> If you pro-pollution bastards had not subsidised SUVs, subsidised
>> gasoline at $3 a gallon to artificially stimulate demand, not started
>> the Iraq war to throttle the supply of oil from the #2 reserves, then
>> you might have been on your way to a clean, sustainable future.
>> You did nothing to invent new high efficiency vehicles and appliances.
>> The pro-environment types have done all the work. You have done
>> nothing but try to derail the efforts. You are the planet haters.
>
> Look out, I've been sniffing too much air pollution.
> Does strange things to your mind...
> Does strange things to your body...
> Free air pollution everywhere.
> Everybody's using it, all the time.
> We can't kick the habit.
>
Your pittyful quasi poetry above makes you look like you
want to ahve it both ways, buy implied sacrasm... Explain
expain clearly... your hex-liner won't wash... it's dirty green.
>
[Roedy Green.... green!?.....ahahahaha...]
>> "Quietly tucked into Bush's budget is a big fat zero for the key EPA
>> civil enforcement team. This has no connection whatsoever to the
>> petrochemical industry dumping $48,000,000 into the Republican
>> campaign." ~ Greg Palast
>
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>>
>> "The spiky-haired protesters in Seattle believe there's some kind of
>> grand conspiracy between the corporate powers, the IMF, the World
>> Bank, and agencies which work to suck the blood of Bolivians and steal
>> the gold from Tanzania. But the tree-huggers are wrong; the details
>> are far more stomach-churning than they imagine."
>> ~ Greg Palast
>>
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
hanson
>> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
>> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
... and surely you did, Elliot, which even rhymes nicely with idiot.
ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
> how much he is in need of anger management baby sitting.
>
hanson
>> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
>> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
news:4ftoc2ddunna0anp2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:53:57 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
> If you pro-pollution bastards had not subsidised SUVs, subsidised
> gasoline at $3 a gallon to artificially stimulate demand, not started
> the Iraq war to throttle the supply of oil from the #2 reserves, then
> you might have been on your way to a clean, sustainable future.
>
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
> You did nothing to invent new high efficiency vehicles and appliances.
> The pro-environment types have done all the work. You have done
> nothing but try to derail the efforts. You are the planet haters.
>
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
> "Quietly tucked into Bush's budget is a big fat zero for the key EPA
> civil enforcement team. This has no connection whatsoever to the
> petrochemical industry dumping $48,000,000 into the Republican
> campaign." ~ Greg Palast
>
[hanson]
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
[Roedy Green.... green!?.....ahahahaha...]
> "The spiky-haired protesters in Seattle believe there's some kind of
> grand conspiracy between the corporate powers, the IMF, the World
> Bank, and agencies which work to suck the blood of Bolivians and steal
> the gold from Tanzania. But the tree-huggers are wrong; the details
> are far more stomach-churning than they imagine."
> ~ Greg Palast
>
[hanson]
This is a consequence of (like said).....
>>If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
[Roedy Green.... green!?.....ahahahaha...]
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
> See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
> http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html [1]
>
[hanson]
[1] This too is in great part a consequence of (like said).....
>>If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars
>
Remember now the basics:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
wolfb...@mindspring.com
Who does that? Most Enviros know that such water may be more
contaminated than normal tap water!
You can see hordes
> of little green idiots hanging out everywhere nursing on the nipple
> of their water bottle... The class 1 and 2 enviros have managed to
> bring the adults of an entire nation back into a metal state of
> infancy... ahahahaha... No wonder the Neocons (Pentagon code
> for Jews) and the Evangelicals can live out their spiritual
> perversions by goading Bush into wars...
That is your war BUB!
hanson
news:1154278180.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B wrote:
>> There is a ruse being played here on the American public.
>> Environmental-ism becomes a problem
>>
>> happen - as in the already-made weather service for coastal or
>> riverside dwelling locales, or even finding a new earth in case
>> this one becomes a cultural prison planet.
>>
>> This is where <sci.space.policy> comes in. It is a forum to
>> share these ideas, as well as be aware of what the rusemasters
>> are up to. It is like the "Eye of the Tiger" where intellectual
>> capital has value, not "purported worth".
>
Look, Dogon, you must realize that "Environmental-ism becomes
a problem" is not "becomes",... it always was... and was always only
a moneymachine for the benefit of the rich and the fat pensions of
bureaucrats. "Save the environment" was only a come-on to get
to your wallet. The green shits and the green turds did it with and by
a very simple and elegant system as is seen in the
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
See the problem, now, Dogon?
The government finally began to see it in 2005 and curtailed
the budget of EPA (one of the few good things Bush did) and
it is not without cause and reason that
=1= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the US.
=2= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
=3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had
enough from environmentalism and began to raise their
voices as in news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
wherein Gisin posted: "Fucking greens should be shot...."
>
[Andro to Dogon]
> I will tell you what worries me about environmentalism. Basically we
> are told that if we stop flying and drive at 90km/h everything will be
> fine and dandy. Sme of the remarks about Hilter, Naopleon, Moscow, Bush
> and Baghdad rather miss the point. In fact driving at 90km/h LEADS to
> facihsm. Let me explain why. The Third World, in particular India and
> China will be wanting the same standard of living as we have, and that
> cannot be provided simply be greenery.
>
> The West not flying and driving at 90km/h will just about produce
> sustainability. However the West will then be forced to prevent the
> development of anyone else. Heil Hitler! Heil Bush!
>
> We not only need sustainability we also require EXPANDABILITY. The only
> way to achieve this is by technological progress. Now technological
> progress will come anyway. Two points.
>
> 1) We can by having programs of key technological development shorten
> the cycle.
> 2) Greenery is in fact specifically against technological progress.
> Look at Nuclear Power. The West, at the instigation of greenery, gave
> up a perfectly sound program.
>
[hanson]
Absolutely. ref to (1): in hind-sight greenism should have been stamped
out when they riled against nuclear power.... because as I said in a few
other posts that:
If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
would also have the H-fusion problems licked --- and we would
not be survival dependant on, and being held hostage by
Venez-Hugos, Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all fomenters and
financiers of terrorism against the West ... (who has brought'em
wealth and power in the first place.... ahahahaha.... ironic, isn't it.)
ahahaha... ahahahanson
PS: Andro, sorry to hear about your loss in the family.
hanson
>> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
>> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
news:1154281018....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> "chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154229371.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> [hanson]
> Who does that? Most Enviros know that such water may be more
> contaminated than normal tap water!
>
Dingbat, you argue and whine in the typical fashion of a little green idiot.
ahahahaha... you argue even if the reason/answer for your question comes
in the very next sentence.... ahahaha... oh, you class 3 enviros!...
ahaha...
... dumber then the shit after a good meal of spinach... ahahaha....
>
[hanson]
>> You can see hordes
>> of little green idiots hanging out everywhere nursing on the nipple
>> of their water bottle... The class 1 and 2 enviros have managed to
>> bring the adults of an entire nation back into a metal state of
>> infancy... ahahahaha... No wonder the Neocons (Pentagon code
>> for Jews) and the Evangelicals can live out their spiritual
>
[Dingbat]
> That is your war BUB!
>
.... see what you did in your greenism.... you whine and try to shift
cause and blame away from the enviros. Typical for all little green
idiots. Bush will be gone in 2 years, but the Biblebeaters and the
Jews will remain and keep using the shit you green fuckers started.
>
[hanson]
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:N08zg.5616$j9.3289@trnddc02...
| Androcles aka <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1154278180.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Boy, are you fucked up...
Androcles is NOT Ian Parker.
Androcles is John Parker (B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., yada, yada, yada, retired)
and he doesn't use gmail.
Any similarity in names is purely coincidental.
Have a laugh by all means, hanson, but get your facts straight.
Androcles.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>G. L. Bradford wrote:
>> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny.
>
>There are a *LOT* of groups with the same agenda.
>
>Simply put, they want a world where *everybody* is required by law to
>do what *they* decide is best for all of us.
>
>I refer to the environmentalists, the animal rights groups, the
>abortion rights groups, the peace activists, the anti-smoking lobby,
>the anti-capitalists, the purveyors of political correctness, the
>global warming alarmists, the ESC pushers, the public health watchdogs,
>and others too numerous to name.
Two trends shared by many people: the desire to lord it over others
and the desire to feel righteous. All the activities above allow them
to satisfy both desires at the same time, yielding a nice dopamine
high.
>
>Fortunately, many of these groups are not really talking to each other.
> The only ones listening to even the majority of them are the political
>panderers who are cynically persuing the same objective, and planning
>to use these 'useful idiots' for *their* own ends.
>
>I do so enjoy it when they get crosswise with each other, as they
>occasionally do.
>
Same here. Unforunately, they do have the potential to create a real
mess, at times.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
William Elliot
> William Elliot wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>
> >> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making Man
> >>captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
> >>authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
> >>stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
>
> > The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing but unabash
> > greed. Making people captive to money as the measure of all things human
> > and divine in a totalitarian big brother state.
>
> And the Socialist Democrat agenda is the same, except substituting
> obeisance as the currency. What's your point?
>
Makes excellent photo to pass around for all to see. Smile if you want
your photo taken.
> Besides, I still say the evidence doesn't show we're heading towards
> Earth-as-Venus; it shows we're just coming out of a "long Spring" with
> occasional episodes of "Winter" into a "long Summer" with occasional
> episodes of "Autumn". On geological time scales, of course. Not much we
> can do about it (or did to make it happen) but plan ahead. Get rid of
> most of your winter gear, for one thing; you won't need it for another
> few dozen kyr or so.
>
What me worry? 110 degree heat wave with power brown out because of
everybody using big chill out air conditioners. Oh boy, another power
gouge opportunity for US in addition to US financing $3/gal record gas/oil
companies' profits. So reach into your deep pockets fellow sucker US
citizen and shell out.
William Elliot
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
> >> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
> >> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
> ... and surely you did, Elliot, which even rhymes nicely with idiot.
> ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Worthless crap without literary notice. In addition
your laughing sounds like you need mental evaluation.
William Elliot
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
How long has your uncontrollable laughing been happening?
William Elliot
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
Uncontrollable laughter. White suits, call the white suits.
William Elliot
> ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... yeah, right!... ahahahahaha.....
> Now, go nurse your water bottle and suck!... and keep sucking....
> Thanks for the laughs,
> ahahaha... ahahanson
>
Have you consider seeking help for your uncontrollable laughter?
William Elliot
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
> ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Hey hey kids, look at this, a Republican puppet.
Have fun watching him jerk when you pluck his strings.
William Elliot
> <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear Blitzkrieg.
> >Have a nice day with Napoleon, Hitler and Bush at Waterloo, Moscow and
> >Bagdad.
> >
> >Riddle of the day: How come Bush's Blitzkrieg is taking sooooo long?
>
> Because the wheels have come off the wagon.
>
Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B
hanson wrote:
>Look, Dogon, you must realize that "Environmental-ism becomes
>a problem" is not "becomes",... it always was... and was always
>only a moneymachine for the benefit of the rich and the fat
>pensions of bureaucrats. "Save the environment" was only a come-
>on to get to your wallet. The green shits and the green turds
>did it with and by a very simple and elegant system as is seen
>in the Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
>========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
>...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
>institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
>enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
>HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
>responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
>========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
>... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
>the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
>========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
>.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
>something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
>the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
>green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
You're obviously wacko if you think I can agree with you based
solely on your "also-ran" viewpoint, considering you have not
offered one single substantive viewpoint about *what to do*
except quote someone elses quote "Fucking greens should
be shot...." expletive, inflamatory, childish rant. The blame
game is only a token issue. Declaring "enviros to be the
number one terrorist threat to the U.S." is inflamatorious
fear-mongering, considering the actual number of your #3's that
get mixed in with your #1's, and so forth. It must be on the
order of millions, so, what is the point? There wouldn't be
even remotely enough "soldiers" in your "FBI, Homeland Security,
and DHS regiments to "weed out" the evildoers, and while your
sensationalizing the whole enviro issue, you're obviously not
offering one shread of evidence that you're doing anything to
solve the whole problem.
>See the problem, now, Dogon?
>The government finally began to see it in 2005 and curtailed
>the budget of EPA (one of the few good things Bush did) and
>it is not without cause and reason that
>=1= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
>enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the US.
>=2= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
>no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
>=3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had
>enough from environmentalism and began to raise their
>voices as in news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>wherein Gisin posted: "Fucking greens should be shot...."
The USDA/FDA non-endorsement of "organic" products only
means that "organic" products are now becoming less of a
advertising/marketable one because of political climatry,
but I'd still purchase one at a reasonable cost, and still
be more truthful in that purchase rather than someone who
must look at every stupid product label and see if there
is an EPA or FDA stamp on the package. Yet this is the level
of extremism one must resort to in order to be purged of
any influence of the purported greens invading the planet.
You assess that the "government... curtailed the budget of
EPA" (so what?!) and that the "FBI and Homeland Security/
DHS has declared enviros to be.." .. Great, they're all only
another giant paper tiger trail of bureaucratic promises
that don't lead anywhere except more paper - great job,
captain, you've just added the great body of lukewarm middle
class pig sucking snobs, whores, and minutia men to your
re-bloated bureaucracy. Stop quoting what other people say
and show more pay dirt if you want credibility.
>[Andro to Dogon]
>I will tell you what worries me about environmentalism.
>Basically we are told that if we stop flying and drive at
>90km/h everything will be fine and dandy. Sme of the remarks
>about Hilter, Naopleon, Moscow, Bush and Baghdad rather miss
>the point. In fact driving at 90km/h LEADS to facihsm. Let
>me explain why. The Third World, in particular India and
>China will be wanting the same standard of living as we have,
>and that cannot be provided simply be greenery.
Pure capitalism is what drives *true western* civilization.
Who's worried that all of India and China are driving @ 90km/hr
if we're zipping along airborne @ 200km/hr? The dominionists
can't be, if they've been upgrading their systems to stay com-
petitive now, aren't they? And if the "good, rational & hard
working folks" were working good, rational, and hard for a
reason, then must be a reason for amplifying the current
translating field of influence within the "backwards" society
of pre-dominionism. That would be only partly the responsi-
bility of our present government, not the full-blown ego-
mania that's been terrorizing our economy with dumbed-down
technology for over 200 years.
>The West not flying and driving at 90km/h will just about
>produce sustainability. However the West will then be forced
>to prevent the development of anyone else. Heil Hitler!
>Heil Bush!
>We not only need sustainability we also require EXPANDABILITY.
>The only way to achieve this is by technological progress. Now
>technological progress will come anyway. Two points.
First, expandability, then within that expandibility, an expand-
ed airspace to include the first 20 miles altitude of airspace.
Given the technology that exists today with flight controllers,
there could be continuous monitoring of all air traffic within
a 100 mile radius of metropolitan areas, with each passenger
vehicle having its own unique RF tag for input to the flight
controller. Any non-RF tagged vehicle would be flagged and
tracked via local radar, and intercepted by the local
authorities. This would eliminate all contemporary concrete
and highway infrastructure, so that the money could be re-ear-
marked for earth-to-orbit technologies. After all, isn't the
planet becoming incapable of simultaneously supporting all of
humanity with this type of modernization indefinitely? Yes,
there are other "earths" out there. Just look at all the G2V
spectral class stars in the galaxy and you'll get a pretty
good idea that there is a good possibility that within every
70 parsec radius from our own sun, there may be planets simi-
lar to our own. (This study was done by the British
Interplanetary Society back around 1976). Anyone who has been
keeping up with propulsion technology can see that we now
have the capability for FTL transportation. It's the dumbing
down technologies that hinder the spirit of entrepreneurialism
in this area. I'm not saying that automotive engineering is
solely responsible for this, but it could be that environment-
alism is an artificial ruse to block any attempts by the
manufacturers to produce such a technology. The "greens" are
simply a distraction to spin the blame machine, while keeping
the slaves' nose-to-the-grindstone of the dumbed-down ruse.
>1) We can by having programs of key technological development
>shorten the cycle.
>2) Greenery is in fact specifically against technological
>progress. Look at Nuclear Power. The West, at the instigation
>of greenery, gave up a perfectly sound program.
Absolute control with of technology in this area is fraudulent.
Inventions are a species of their own right. Take away the in-
vention, and cause the species to become extinct. Let me say
that I do not believe in total evolution. That is, the food
chain is more blessed by those who have chosen to receive the
blood of Christ as an atonement for their sins, because it
has already been blessed by the most advanced of species!
Others may wrestle with this idea through various situational
ethics; to me it's just a question of faith. The same holds
true with inventions. The invention becomes an extension of
the inventor's faith that his idea will be patented in order
to help the human race from it's fallen condition, at least to
temporarily solve the inconvenience of environmental/economic/
political incompatibility.
>[hanson]
>Absolutely. ref to (1): in hind-sight greenism should have
>been stamped out when they riled against nuclear power....
"Should have" being different from "is already" because not
only upgrades to fast-breeder reactors have been accomplished
but portable, table-top fusion is a reality. However, as
mentioned in the previous thread, many inventors and engineers
have been threatened, harassed, and even murdered because
their ideas created too much anomalous activity with the cir-
cumstances surrounding their acquisition of patented
technology. In most of the outstanding cases, it was some
paid-for-hire goon squad that caused the harassment. For any
astute observer, It should be more than obvious, with the
internet as it exists today, who's ideas need a witness
protection program, and who the real "terrorists" are.
>because as I said in a few other posts that:
>If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal
>problems, we would have modern batteries and advanced capac-
>itors in our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be
>driving in hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. ---
>In all likelihood we would also have the H-fusion problems
>licked --- and we would not be survival dependant on, and
>being held hostage by Venez-Hugos, Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios
>.... all fomenters and financiers of terrorism against the
>West ... (who has brought'em wealth and power in the first
>place.... ahahahaha.... ironic, isn't it.)
Can harassment be linked to the "greens"? Probably not.
Greens were just a false act to follow. The effect of the
greens in slowing down prospective progress was probably neg-
ligible to the effect that monolithic investors had over the
type and useages of energy technologies used to power the
automobile. Cheap electricity can be replaced with almost
free electricity, rad-chem disposal problems could be phased
out with no-rad disposal or even recyclable, modern batteries
could be portable nuclear plasma-enabling storage devices,
and advanced capacitors could be the portable laser pulsed
tunable emitter type:
The analogue of the plates of the capacitor are opposite faces
of the Bi-IV diamond crystal, which have become established
in *R, and the fringe field lines represent the equipotential,
or for that matter, the equimagnetic polarizations for either
a vertical or horizontal polarized (i.e., 'prolated') ellipsoid.
This 'ellipsoid' is divided symmetrically on the centerline
between the 'plates' of the capacitor. The 'plates' represent
the instantaneous magnetic potential of a compressed spacetime
between symmetric faces of the diamond lattice (i.e., according
to a programmed, buffered, oscillating rate of compression/
decompression), when approximating the shape of the re-prolated
ellipsoid. During 'discharge' of the plates, there is atomic
field decompression towards an incrementally larger value for
R in the spiral of decompression, with respective widening
bandwidth (stretched wavelength) for each increment.
The fringing fields are directed only to one side of the
'capacitor' during decompression. This is because of the in-
stantaneity of the crystallographic angle that the diamond lat-
tice superimposes between dipoles, i.e., although the angle
always remains at 90 degrees, the value of decompression 'R'
expands at a rate defined by the pulsing sequence and amplitude.
The fringing fields between the 'capacitor plates', or sides of
the crystal add together and increase the repulsive gradient
along the bisector of the 'plates', which is at an angle of 45
degrees below the x-axis. The direction of repulsion can be
programmed omnidirectionally, w.r.t. probe beam polarization,
in both the x- and y-plane directions. (My idea)
So you see, Hanson, the problem we are experiencing with tech-
nologies being developed goes beyond being just "green". It's
almost entirely systemic. That is why it needs to be discussed
with a little more detail in <sci.space.policy>, because it
is really <that> revolutionary. Ever notice how the price of oil
is trapped into ever higher spirals when the Fed raises its
interest rates? This is a systemic anomaly created way back,
when the Fed decided to impose capital gains tax on a barrel of
oil that comes out of the ground. This is government tampering
with the dominion of stewardship, entrusted to the original en-
trepreneurs of the petroleum industry, post World War II. The
screen that we have portrayed this behind-the-scenes scam, has
been called "inflation" by these pundits of superficialism,
these satraps of geopolitical landscape, these dissenters to
the spirit of the prophet Job. Yet Americans have been made to
believe that the American oil industry has run America dry of
oil, mainly because of the influx of our own Federal and envi-
ronmental laws, which have tightened the belt for domestic pro-
duction even further, handing our sources over to third world
interests, who jack the prices up even further. Shipping chan-
nels must stay open, and so military interests are the result
we see $3.00 a gallon and higher at most pumps. The fear of in-
flation has become an artificially generated fear, while more
investors get ready for another "bull run" in the markets.
This is downright oppression in the markets. But we bulls al-
ready know that, because the finger of blame always points to
the leaders of establishment business, and the establishment
business always seek a nastier incrementalism with government
tax breaks. Ergo, creeping bureaucracy in the workplace. Why?
Because the Fed is too ashamed to admit that most business,
trade, and commerce investors are too into the "Kingdom Now"
of "I Got Mine" than seeking a phasing out program for oil.
This is why we need to throw out these transnationalist
"minutia men" from office.
G. L. Bradford
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
(snip)
> We not only need sustainability we also require EXPANDABILITY. The only
> way to achieve this is by technological progress. Now technological
> progress will come anyway. Two points.
What is required is a space frontier: Colonization of and a growing exodus
to the space frontier, soonest! The equivalent of war. A beginning exhaust
of -- a beginning drop in -- our ever growing societal and economic
pressures (tyrannies / anarchies). A beginning to a growth of equilibrium.
Just the beginning, just the first [permanent] space complex -- and a mass
transit system to it -- in place out in the space frontier, will go a long,
long way toward alleviating growing [implosive / explosive] pressures here.
Continued worship of Science as God Almighty (worshipping human scientists
as human gods almighty) won't even begin to slow down the acceleration in
the numbers and growth of societal / economic pressures in progress. When
too many humans begin to worship tools --their extensions of their mind and
limbs -- as ruling gods over them thinking for them, doing for them and
taking care of them in place of their thinking and doing and taking care for
themselves, taking and keeping charge over things themselves (enlarging
their minds' own Space Age 'spatial frontier' to simultaneously suit with
their expansion out into the Universe at large), both they and their tools,
their extensions, are bound for extinction.
There is no such thing as "sustainability" in one world (with regard to
just one world)!
GLB
enchomko
G. L. Bradford wrote:
> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making Man
> captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
> authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
> stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
>
> Age' with interludes widely differing in lengths of "global warming." Even
> during the periods of global warming there have been interludes of differing
> Making Man captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
> mass, weight, and momentum, all of them massively, momentously, interacting
> in some higher dimensional way beyond practically anyone's grasp of what is
> forming with regard to Man's world, much less adhering to ANYONE's -- any
> kind of STATE's -- span of control and direction. All of these agendas are
> (so to speak) adding straw to the camel's back and none of them see, or can
> possibly see, the others' straw or addition of straw, much less the grand
> total amount of straw now on the camel's back. One day one of them (pick
> one, any one) is going to add the final last least most insignificant of all
> feather weight piece of catastrophic straw-string to the camel's back. A
> practically weightless, tiniest most insignificant piece of straw-string
> that in no way by itself should or could ever actuate, spark, detonate,
> trigger, world Apocalypse or Armageddon. But it would.
What about your agenda? Why don't you discuss that?
Eric
>
> GLB
Lloyd Parker
>[I took sci.physics.relativity off, because the Einstein dingleberries
>in that NG are inconsequential by any & all means and standards]
>
> ---- "The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny." ----
>
>Brad, let me tell you that what you worry about below is just the
>tip of this vile, green disease. It is far worse than you say, Brad.
>
> *** Environmentalists are the root cause for high gas prices
>
Because poll after poll shows people want dirty air, polluted water,
carcinogens in their food...
>If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
>reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
>would also have the H-fusion problems licked --- and we would
>not be survival dependant on, and being held hostage by
>Venez-Hugos, Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all fomenters and
>financiers of terrorism against us ... (who have brought'em wealth
>and power in the first palce.... ahahahaha.... ironic, isn't it.)
>
We'd have replicators to make our food, and warp drive to establish
colonies...
Christopher
Isn't that the same thing.
hanson
insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
examplke, how insistently fanatical little green idiots are....
ahahaha....
Thanks for being a posterchild for environmentalism, William..
>
[hanson]
>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
>> >> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
You just committed a bad Freudian Slip, William
Why exactly did you crank yourself so grievously that
you must seek salvation with/by/from children?
You are suspect Elliot. ...ahahaha... ahahaha...
ahaha... ahahanson
>
AND... for your benefit and educartion, William, do realize that:
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
>
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
When you hear enviro whining or see green turds proselytizing or
eco-promos then clutch your wallet. Fast. They want your $$$$.
PS:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can you see that, William?
If not, then I will show you where your green Bible laid the
foundations for this green pathology...
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
ahahaha....
Thanks for being a posterchild for environmentalism, William..
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
[hanson]
See the FAQ pertaining to your grief-stricken retorts in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
ahahaha... ahahaha... ahhhhhhh.....
AND... for your benefit and educartion, William, do realize that:
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
>
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
When you hear enviro whining or see green turds proselytizing or
eco-promos then clutch your wallet. Fast. They want your $$$$.
PS:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can you see that, William?
hanson
insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
ahahaha....
Thanks for being a posterchild for environmentalism, William..
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
>
>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
>
> Uncontrollable laughter. White suits, call the white suits.
>
See the FAQ pertaining to your grief-stricken retorts in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
ahahaha... ahahaha...
AND... for your benefit and educartion, William, do realize that:
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
>
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
When you hear enviro whining or see green turds proselytizing or
eco-promos then clutch your wallet. Fast. They want your $$$$.
PS:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can you see that, William?
hanson
insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
examplke, how insistently fanatical little green idiots are....
ahahaha....
Thanks for being a posterchild for environmentalism, William..
>
[Elliot]
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
>
>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
>
> How long has your uncontrollable laughing been happening?
>
See the FAQ pertaining to your grief-stricken retorts in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
ahahaha... ahahaha...
AND... for your benefit and educartion, William, do realize that:
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
>
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
When you hear enviro whining or see green turds proselytizing or
eco-promos then clutch your wallet. Fast. They want your $$$$.
PS:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can you see that, William?
hanson
insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
ahahaha....
Thanks for being a poster-child for environmentalism, William..
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
>
>> ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... .... It said in my post below:
>> >> .... let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
>> >> do retort ..... citing all kind of phony guises.
>> ... and surely you did, Elliot, which even rhymes nicely with idiot.
>> ahahaha... Thanks you the laughs,
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Worthless crap without literary notice. In addition
> your laughing sounds like you need mental evaluation.
>
See the FAQ pertaining to your grief-stricken retorts in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
ahahaha... ahahaha...
AND... for your benefit and educartion, William, do realize that:
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
>
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
When you hear enviro whining or see green turds proselytizing or
eco-promos then clutch your wallet. Fast. They want your $$$$.
PS:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can you see that, William?
Mark L. Fergerson
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
>
>>William Elliot wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>>
>>>> The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny. Nothing but tyranny. Making Man
>>>>captive to yet another total quality organized and managed total
>>>>authoritarianism. The Earth has never once in its history had a long term
>>>>stable climate. Its climate has always been in change.
>>
>>>The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing but unabash
>>>greed. Making people captive to money as the measure of all things human
>>>and divine in a totalitarian big brother state.
>>
>> And the Socialist Democrat agenda is the same, except substituting
>>obeisance as the currency. What's your point?
> Let a person in denial talk long enuf until he puts his foot in his mouth.
> Makes excellent photo to pass around for all to see. Smile if you want
> your photo taken.
What are you blithering about? Did you think I was disagreeing with
you? Did you not notice the "And..." as opposed to "No,..."
You also snipped your next bit (which I agreed with as well):
> The Earth has never once in its history had a long term not corrupt
> government. Corruption has always been wishing you a lousy day.
This was meant to cover Democrat administrations as well as
Republican ones, yes? If so, you are correct. If not, you are a fool;
consider how many Liberal Democrat career politicians are _not_ rich
white men or their wives (or pawns). If they're so Liberal, why are they
still rich? Because they're greedy. They say they're not, but by now
shirley you ought to be able to tell when a politician is lying.
>> Besides, I still say the evidence doesn't show we're heading towards
>>Earth-as-Venus; it shows we're just coming out of a "long Spring" with
>>occasional episodes of "Winter" into a "long Summer" with occasional
>>episodes of "Autumn". On geological time scales, of course. Not much we
>>can do about it (or did to make it happen) but plan ahead. Get rid of
>>most of your winter gear, for one thing; you won't need it for another
>>few dozen kyr or so.
> What me worry? 110 degree heat wave with power brown out because of
> everybody using big chill out air conditioners. Oh boy, another power
> gouge opportunity for US in addition to US financing $3/gal record gas/oil
> companies' profits. So reach into your deep pockets fellow sucker US
> citizen and shell out.
You appear to be the sort of Liberal who knee-jerk assumes that
anyone who fails to totally agree with the Liberal line-to-be-toed must
be a hard-Right Neocon. I am not, I'm an anarchist. They're ALL liars.
Their agendas are lies, their "solutions" are lies.
The actual facts (not the pimped-up press bulletins of either extreme
end of the political spectrum) do indeed point to a perfectly natural
long-term rise in average global temperature, and if you were the least
bit interested in actually learning about it I'd point you to a few
cites. But I won't bother because you've already made up your mind I'm a
Neocon shill since I refuse to follow your Saints Malthus, Nader, Gore
and Dean, haven't you?
If you don't like paying ridiculous prices for gas, stop buying it.
Ever heard of "supply and demand"? Use products and services that
promote a sensible energy policy and don't use those that don't; that
will do infinitely more good than posting composted Liberal
talking-points on the Internet. Rearrange your home so you don't _need_
a thirty-ton AC. Order your life around a decent bike and/or public
transportation (disregarding for the moment the abysmal fuel
efficiencies of most such systems, but at least you have the opportunity
of spreading the fuel cost per person-mile). IOW stop whining and
accusing, and start acting. I have.
Mark L. Fergerson
tadchem
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> What is an ESC?
Embryonic stem cells - as opposed to "adult stem cells" which are
extracted from tissue of a living creature, have been researched for
decades, have been successfully used to treat dozens of medical
conditions, and which do not require the destruction of a human embryo
(which seems to be a very sensitive moral issue with some people).
One might think that, if we cannot say or do certain things lest we
*possibly* offend a single person, the same 'political correctness'
would mandate against destruction of embryos which large numbers of
people find offensive to the point of calling it homicide. <wry grin>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
William Elliot
> William Elliot wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
> >
> >>>The capitalist Republican agenda is greedy tyranny. Nothing but unabash
> >>>greed. Making people captive to money as the measure of all things human
> >>>and divine in a totalitarian big brother state.
> >>
> >> And the Socialist Democrat agenda is the same, except substituting
> >>obeisance as the currency. What's your point?
>
> > Let a person in denial talk long enuf until he puts his foot in his mouth.
> > Makes excellent photo to pass around for all to see. Smile if you want
> > your photo taken.
>
> What are you blithering about? Did you think I was disagreeing with
> you? Did you not notice the "And..." as opposed to "No,..."
>
> You also snipped your next bit (which I agreed with as well):
>
> > The Earth has never once in its history had a long term not corrupt
> > government. Corruption has always been wishing you a lousy day.
>
> This was meant to cover Democrat administrations as well as
> Republican ones, yes? If so, you are correct. If not, you are a fool;
What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
> consider how many Liberal Democrat career politicians are _not_ rich
> white men or their wives (or pawns). If they're so Liberal, why are they
> still rich? Because they're greedy. They say they're not, but by now
> shirley you ought to be able to tell when a politician is liberal.
Show me a politician that's off center.
DeFazio of Oregon. Any others?
> You appear to be the sort of Liberal who knee-jerk assumes that
> anyone who fails to totally agree with the Liberal line-to-be-toed must
> be a hard-Right Neocon. I am not, I'm an anarchist. They're ALL liars.
>
The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the Democrat uses
a rubber.
> Their agendas are lies, their "solutions" are lies.
>
Politicians promise to build bridges where there is no river.
-- Krutschev.
> The actual facts (not the pimped-up press bulletins of either extreme
> end of the political spectrum) do indeed point to a perfectly natural
> long-term rise in average global temperature, and if you were the least
> bit interested in actually learning about it I'd point you to a few
> cites. But I won't bother because you've already made up your mind I'm a
> Neocon shill since I refuse to follow your Saints Malthus, Nader, Gore
> and Dean, haven't you?
>
Oh my gosh, your indoctrination hasn't taken effect.
You need to sent to boarding school for re-education.
> If you don't like paying ridiculous prices for gas, stop buying it.
I don't own a car.
> Ever heard of "supply and demand"? Use products and services that
> promote a sensible energy policy and don't use those that don't; that
Yes, get people hooked on things they need and create artificial shortages.
> will do infinitely more good than posting composted Liberal
> talking-points on the Internet. Rearrange your home so you don't _need_
> a thirty-ton AC. Order your life around a decent bike and/or public
> transportation (disregarding for the moment the abysmal fuel
> efficiencies of most such systems, but at least you have the opportunity
> of spreading the fuel cost per person-mile). IOW stop whining and
> accusing, and start acting. I have.
>
I don't have an AC. Given me air space, give me media so I can act. So I
can demand 80 miles per gallon auto, get the sheep mad as hell why they
aren't allowed affordable cars and scare the auto makers into learning
engineering and making intelligent designs. Total bill for my media
take over including cost of purchasing legislation to turn this country
back from self delusionary destruction is $one trillion (cost over runs
not included).
Have a nice day. That's an order.
William Elliot
Congradualtions you have taken in party line, hook line and sinker.
> ahahaha... Elliot, which nicely rhymes with idiot.... apparently
> insists to show the world in his 5 (!) concurrent posts, by his
> example, how insistently fanatical little green idiots are....
> ahahaha....
> Thanks for being a poster-child for environmentalism, William..
> >
> "William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
William Elliot
<party prattle>
Oh boy, you want the last word?
Spit it out baby boy before you choke on it.
William Elliot
<at length how addicted he is to party line bad mouthing>
William Elliot
<Repetitious party line reruns without a brain cell of entertainment>
Baldin...@msn.com
hanson wrote:
> [I took sci.physics.relativity off, because the Einstein dingleberries
> in that NG are inconsequential by any & all means and standards]
>
> Brad, in your post below you state:
> ---- "The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny." ----
>
> Brad, let me tell you that what you worry about below is just the
> tip of this vile, green disease. It is far worse than you say, Brad.
>
> *** Environmentalists are the root cause for high gas prices
> *** and the reason for the current world wide terrorism.
>
> reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
> today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
> we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
> our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
> hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
> would also have the H-fusion problems licked ---
Ridiculous. It is no exaggeration to say that if you are actually
serious, and not just trolling, that you are one of the most
unintelligent posters I have ever seen on Usenet.
Baldin Pramer
William Elliot
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >Brad, in your post below you state:
> > ---- "The agenda of environmentalism is tyranny." ----
> >
> >Brad, let me tell you that what you worry about below is just the
> >tip of this vile, green disease. It is far worse than you say, Brad.
> >
> > *** Environmentalists are the root cause for high gas prices
> > *** and the reason for the current world wide terrorism.
>
> Because poll after poll shows people want dirty air, polluted water,
> carcinogens in their food...
>
Of course, the purchasers of those poll results are the providers of dirty
air, polluted water and eatable carcinogens.
William Elliot
> <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Christopher wrote:
> >> <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dear Blitzkrieg.
> >> >Have a nice day with Napoleon, Hitler and Bush at Waterloo, Moscow and
> >> >Bagdad.
> >> >
> >> >Riddle of the day: How come Bush's Blitzkrieg is taking sooooo long?
> >>
> >> Because the wheels have come off the wagon.
> >>
> >Oh no, noooo...! You mean Bush isn't on a roll?
>
> Isn't that the same thing.
>
Al Smith
>>> reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
>>> today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
>>> we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
>>> our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
>>> hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
>>> would also have the H-fusion problems licked ---
>
>
> Ridiculous. It is no exaggeration to say that if you are actually
> serious, and not just trolling, that you are one of the most
> unintelligent posters I have ever seen on Usenet.
>
> Baldin Pramer
>
On the contrary, his statements have merit. There is something
called a nuclear battery that has an extraordinarily long period
of use and never needs to be charged. There are nuclear rockets
which would have permitted us to have explored the planets of the
solar system by this time, they are so much more powerful and
efficient than chemical rockets. There is safe nuclear power
generating technology that would have eliminated the pollution of
oil and coal-fired electrical generating plants. All this has been
left unused due to fears over nuclear radiation, and most of those
fears are groundless.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote:
...
>> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
>> > Let a person in denial talk long enuf until he puts
>> > his foot in his mouth. Makes excellent photo to
>> > pass around for all to see. Smile if you want
>> > your photo taken.
>>
>> What are you blithering about? Did you think I
>> was disagreeing with you? Did you not notice the
>> "And..." as opposed to "No,..."
>>
>> You also snipped your next bit (which I agreed
>> with as well):
>>
>> > The Earth has never once in its history had a
>> > long term not corrupt government. Corruption
>> > has always been wishing you a lousy day.
>>
>> This was meant to cover Democrat
>> administrations as well as Republican ones, yes?
>> If so, you are correct. If not, you are a fool;
>
> What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
Isn't that the straight line for a joke?
"The size of their scat. Just look at their choice of mascot."
...
>> You appear to be the sort of Liberal who knee-jerk
>> assumes that anyone who fails to totally agree with
>> the Liberal line-to-be-toed must be a hard-Right
>> Neocon. I am not, I'm an anarchist. They're ALL liars.
>>
> The difference between a Democrat and a Republican
> is the Democrat uses a rubber.
"I did not have sex with that woman."
David A. Smith
Righturds Doing More than Al Qaeda in Gutting America
You should try the nukular enema -- it is a lifelike inflated Karl Rove doll with an erection that you righturd
bumboys can get many happy hours of realistic satisfaction, almost as if he was right there socking it to ya'.
hanson
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
> I don't own a car.
>
... ahahahaha... "not owning a car!!".... AHAHAhahahaha...
That is the hallmark of a little green idiot.... you being too
fucking lazy or incapable to work to earn the money to buy
one... and that, for some environmental reason, seems to
give you in your twisted green mind the right to have an
incessant loud big-mouth on the web and telling hard working
folks how to live and behave....
Diagnostically, like in all cases for little green idiots like you,
your sorry condition is the result from the indoctrination you
received from/by the green Bible that brainwashed you into
believing that:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
You are probably too far gone for possible recovery, but try to
realize that the class 1 & 2 enviros have fucked you over and
debilitated you real good, you stupid mooch. Here's their scheme
& scam:
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can't you see, they, the class 1 and 2 enviros drive the fancy
cars and own the "protected lands" and you class 3 fool bends
over and begs'em: "please one more time"..... ahahahaha...
Get a job you loud, sickly little green idiot or if you are in an
institution then shut the fuck up and concentrate on getting
well enough or free again to become gainfully employed....
and be and live like a normal person.
I wish you all the luck, William. Stop with letting them fuck
you and you being their posterchild for environmentalism.
Enjoy life, dude! It's your inalienable right! It's fun!... ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/673209a65d58de51
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can't you see, they, the class 1 and 2 enviros drive the fancy
hanson
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
Can't you see, they, the class 1 and 2 enviros drive the fancy
jmfb...@aol.com
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What is an ESC?
>
>Embryonic stem cells -
Oh, of course...how foolish of me to not think of that one. :-)
Thanks.
> as opposed to "adult stem cells" which are
>extracted from tissue of a living creature, have been researched for
>decades, have been successfully used to treat dozens of medical
>conditions, and which do not require the destruction of a human embryo
>(which seems to be a very sensitive moral issue with some people).
I've given up on trying to understand what all this brouhaha is
about. All I know is that none of the news reports ever make
any sense.
>
>One might think that, if we cannot say or do certain things lest we
>*possibly* offend a single person, the same 'political correctness'
>would mandate against destruction of embryos which large numbers of
>people find offensive to the point of calling it homicide. <wry grin>
There will be a time when people will be arrested for not
reproducing when ordered to do so. And I can see females
getting arrested if they begin menstruation.
/BAH
William Elliot
>
> Isn't that the straight line for a joke?
>
> "The size of their scat. Just look at their choice of mascot."
>
> > is the Democrat uses a rubber.
>
> "I did not have sex with that woman."
>
William Elliot
> ... ahahahaha... "not owning a car!!".... AHAHAhahahaha...
Laugh laugh, how easy it is for me to get you to puke your brains.
William Elliot
> ahahaha... Elliot, which nicely rhymes with idiot.... apparently
<snip> Get to work, write a lot more that won't be read.
William Elliot
> > I don't own a car.
> >
> [hanson]
> ... ahahahaha... "not owning a car!!".... AHAHAhahahaha...
Have you notice how, when you talk to yourself, you repleat yourself?
William Elliot
> ... ahahahaha... "not owning a car!!".... AHAHAhahahaha...
Talking to your self is bad enough, but to meaningless repeat yourself ...
Baldin...@msn.com
Al Smith wrote:
> >>If these green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
> >>> reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
> >>> today plenty of cheap electricity, no rad-chem disposal problems,
> >>> we would have modern batteries and advanced capacitors in
> >>> our cars instead of gas-tanks and we would be driving in
> >>> hi-powered nonpolluting electric cars. --- In all likelihood we
> >>> would also have the H-fusion problems licked ---
> >
> >
> > Ridiculous. It is no exaggeration to say that if you are actually
> > serious, and not just trolling, that you are one of the most
> > unintelligent posters I have ever seen on Usenet.
> >
> > Baldin Pramer
> >
>
> On the contrary, his statements have merit. There is something
> called a nuclear battery that has an extraordinarily long period
> of use and never needs to be charged.
This is true, but its development has not been hampered by
environmentalists.
> There are nuclear rockets
> which would have permitted us to have explored the planets of the
> solar system by this time,
They might have helped, but thrust to weight ratio is not the only
factor that keeps us earthbound. Effective shielding is heavy, and like
it or not, any fissile material wreaks havoc on electronic instruments
and people..
> There is safe nuclear power
> generating technology that would have eliminated the pollution of
> oil and coal-fired electrical generating plants.
No argument here.
> All this has been
> left unused due to fears over nuclear radiation, and most of those
> fears are groundless.
Some of the fears are groundless. Nuclear radiation is definitely
dangerous, and there are real, and as yet insurmounted problems with
waste disposal.
However, if you notice where I cut him off, my comment was provoked by
his ridiculous statement that the fusion problem would have been licked
by now. Nuclear fusion is one technology that has never, as far as I
can recollect, been opposed by environmentalists. Our failure to attain
sustainable fusion has nothing whatsoever to do with greens, and
everything to do with the state of our science and technology.
Baldin Pramer
G. L. Bradford
enchomko wrote:
> What about your agenda? Why don't you discuss that?
>
> Eric
What a stupid question that "What about your agenda?" is, Eric. It's clear
to anyone initiated into clarity. Exposing you and yours for what you really
are is clearly my agenda. Now do you wish to discuss that? Directly? Out of
your ever shifting shadowlands ("What about your agenda? Why don't you
discuss that?")? Shift! Wiggle! Squirm!
Now as to my ultimate agenda, it is freeing the [would be free of you]
from you and yours, SOONEST! That means nothing less than colonizing and
opening -- wide open -- the Outer Space Frontier, SOONEST! Opening the door
out of the room (this distance-time shrunken world, in case you didn't get
it), SOONEST! Otherwise, they (the would be free of you) might do something
a little more permanent (for at least a time), a little more primitively
barbaric (for at least a time), about you and yours -- and never mind what
the necessary "colateral damage" in passing to get to you and yours among
your human shields. Even if its the whole world that would have to be the
"colateral damage," if finally need for that be as well.
As I've said many times before, I'm a lifelong student of history, life,
and especially the relative universal natures and physics involved, now.
That which has apparently only recently occurred to physicist Stephen
Hawking, but occurred to such as physicist Gerard K. O'Neill long ago (at
least in part). And to such as historian Edward Gibbon and others quite a
long time before any of them. Matter and anti-matter draw to one another
faster than you would believe possible, given just one hiccup of whatever
the containment field. Just one hiccup!
GLB
hanson
:: .... Let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
:: do compulsively retort ..... citing all kinds of phony guises.
:: ... and surely you do, Elliot.... which nicely rhymes with idiot.
:: ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, ahahaha... ahahahansonnews:Pine.BSI.4.58.0...@vista.hevanet.com...
> I don't own a car.
>
[hanson]
hanson
:: .... Let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
:: do compulsively retort ..... citing all kinds of phony guises.
:: ... and surely you do, Elliot.... which nicely rhymes with idiot.
:: ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> I don't own a car.
>
[hanson]
hanson
:: .... Let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
:: do compulsively retort ..... citing all kinds of phony guises.
:: ... and surely you do, Elliot.... which nicely rhymes with idiot.
:: ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
> I don't own a car.
>
[hanson]
hanson
:: .... Let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
:: do compulsively retort ..... citing all kinds of phony guises.
:: ... and surely you do, Elliot.... which nicely rhymes with idiot.
:: ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> I don't own a car.
>
[hanson]
Sorcerer
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, hanson wrote:
|
| Congradualtions you have taken in party line, hook line and sinker.
One... congra eels are not dual conger eels, but can be caught on
a hook, line and sinker with suitable bait.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aquarium/pages/conger.html
Two... the party line is on the Moscow Metro, the hook line is
on the New York Subway, the sinker is on the London Underground
running parallel to the sewer line where it crosses the Bakerloo line.
One... the word is "congraTulations", not "congra-dual-tions".
(I doubt you can count to three.)
One again... Have a nice congraduation, should you ever be congraduated from
first grade.
Four... hanson did not write that, lying little Billy Elliot the idiot did.
Androcles
Christopher
Err president Bush's brother...Jed.
--
Christopher
<><><> Who cares who wins !!! <><><>
William Elliot
William Elliot
William Elliot
William Elliot
William Elliot
> |
> | Congradualtions you have taken in party line, hook line and sinker.
>
> One... congra eels are not dual conger eels, but can be caught on
> a hook, line and sinker with suitable bait.
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aquarium/pages/conger.html
>
take a English as a second language. But perhaps not, composition
classes are not given for free, if perchance you could benefit from one.
William Elliot
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:12:22 -0700, William Elliot
> >> >>
> >> >> >Have a nice day with Napoleon, Hitler and Bush at Waterloo, Moscow and
> >> >> >Bagdad.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Riddle of the day: How come Bush's Blitzkrieg is taking sooooo long?
> >> >> Because the wheels have come off the wagon.
> >> >>
> >> >Oh no, noooo...! You mean Bush isn't on a roll?
> >> Isn't that the same thing.
> >>
> >Gee whiz, who's gonna fix his little red, white and blue wagon?
> Err president Bush's brother...Jed.
>
The farce is already with him.
Christopher
No...Jed Bush the governor of Florida, and younger brother of
President Bush.
>The farce is already with him.
hanson
:: .... Let's see how many little green idiots, class 3 enviros,
:: do compulsively retort ..... citing all kinds of phony guises.
:: ... and surely you do, Elliot.... which nicely rhymes with idiot.
:: ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.0...@vista.hevanet.com...
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.06...@vista.hevanet.com...