Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-17-2004   #51
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 40
The environmentalist would like you to believe that the world is in dire straights and we are causing everything from global warming to causing cancer. Sure some things that we do aren't that great for the environment and do cause cancer, but to think that we as a nation have that much of an impact on the environment is absurd. Look up how much emission type gases and smoke come from one volcano and then tell me that we cause the holes in the ozone (which have always existed and always will). Dams are built to provide energy for the people in a certain area. Would you rather use coal from a near by strip mine. With as many people as there are and with all of the Mormons reproducing like they do what are we to do. Just joking Mormons, its the Mexicans (In jest).
I mean no disrespect, but I am amazed at the simplicity of this view. Comparing industrial air pollution to volcano's is a stretch. Lets assume though that you are right, difference is that the fumes released by a volcano are natural, occur at relatively regular time intervals and are composed of entirely different compounds than the shit spewing from your local refinery. Whether you want to accept it or not, the earth has biophysical constraints. There are ecological laws just as there are laws of physics, and right now we live in a profligate manner that does not respect any semblance of the ecological limits of the planet. Its tough to see in this country because so much of what we consume comes from other countries, and so the byproducts of that consumption can be found there as well rather than here. A river basin outside of the industrial district in China now has water to toxic to touch much less drink, cancer is the number one killer there by a long shot. If that squishy stuff doesn't matter to you consider that the economy is entirely provisioned by the environment. I challenge you to find me a product that is not derived at some level from resources provided right here on earth. For a long time -post industrial revolution- resources were plentiful and labor was scarce. Now that has shifted and the number one impediment to economic grow th and development is lack of resources. We are now hindered by lack of fish in the oceans not boats to fish for the, lack of timber, not the chainsaws to cut it down, lack of clean water not pumps to bring it to our faucets. We do need to strik a blanace between our needs and maintaining a healthy environment, to think differently is selfish and shortsighted. If you like the fact that the US is as clean as it is then make sure to than those damn liberals for all the regulations they have put in place over the years because without them this country would be in far worse shape and you would -maybe- have a less rosey outlook.
So when you say that us crazies are painting an ugly picture about the state of the environment you are absolutely correct because the picture is ugly my friend, that is if you are willing to look outside of your bubble.

For those pacifists out there, if you were on one of the planes that was hijacked, what would you do? Would you do like the people on the plane that eventually crashed into a field and fight or would you just sit there and hope that the terrorists come to their sences and let you all go? Be carefull, VIOLENCE=VIOLENCE
This is also an interesting connection you have made. Lets be real clear here man, even your boys in the white house -except maybe Cheney- have conceded that there was no connection between Iraq and the hijackers on 9-11. So I think your metaphor would be better like this: If you were on the flight and the hijackers suddenly took over the plane would you jump out of your seat run right by them and go beat the living shit out of the Arab passenger sitting back in seat 10-A? If not you are a pacifist wuss.
I'm not a pacifist so much as I really think it sucks when thousands of people who don't deserve to die are killed for reasons that are all about money and power. If my life is threatened I will fight tooth and nail, but I think its weak to continue to try to rationalize the killing and collateral damage in Iraq by connecting it to 9-11. The connection just insn;t there.

nice weekend all-

Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #52
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
Looks like I submitted this twice by accident. Whoops- full post below.

El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #53
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879

A few quick rebuttals to your arguments:

1. Don't pull the 9/11 card and equate everyone who disagrees with Bush a pacifist. There isn't anyone on this site that would shy from defending this country with the full might of the military against our attackers. I haven't seen anyone on this site or in the "liberal" media question the decision to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. No one. Not even the most liberal members of Congress opposed going after Bin Laden. So your argument that the anti-Bush community proposes rolling over against its enemies doesn't wash. And don't raise the specter of the folks who died in the attacks of 9/11; it cheapens their sacrifice for you to make a exaggerated, weak political point.

2. The rise of fundamentalist extremism against our government is is not limited to Islam. Do we forget that the most deadly terrorist attack on our soil prior to 9/11 came from one of our own countrymen (Tim McVeigh / Army of God)? We will always have to anticipate groups and individuals that are willing to do us harm and seek to break our will by barbaric measures such as beheadings, and Bush & the Republican party do not get a free pass as the only ones who will fight back against our enemies. The indisputable fact is that people like John Kerry and John McCain enlisted to fight for their country, in a was that was by all accounts a disaster; while Bush, Rumsfeld & Rove sat it out because they felt like they had better things to do.

2. Bush did not *see* the warning signs- in fact, the evidence in the 9/11 commission (the formation of which Bush initially opposed -flip/flop) pointed to a 'lack of imagination' in the greater intelligence community, which is absolutely Bush's responsibility. The guy dropped the ball, although I know he did not purposefully ignore the warnings. If the same thing happened with Gore, you'd be howling for his impeachment.

3. Whitewater. The is a sad case in American political witchhunting. Ken Starr spent 4 1/2 years and $80 million to put Susan McDougal in prison for a couple of years. They found no connection to the Clintons, so that's fact (remember the whole innocent until proven guilty premise our laws are based on?) If I were her & knew something about their nefarious involvement in this investment, I would have sang like a canary the minute he passed me over for a presidential pardon at the end of his term. There are NO FACTS to support this argument, which has nothing to do with the current world and political environment and is clearly a empty partisan jab against anyone who voted Democratic. Truth be told I didn't care much for Clinton for his whoring around, but it's nothing new in American politics. It was 5 years ago, so move on....

4. Halliburton. Clearly they are capable of handling large jobs as they ones they been given in Iraq. So was Schaumburg in France, and given the climate that Bush created we knew they weren't getting a piece of the action. The fact that Halliburton and it's many subsidiaries have been repeatedly been caught overbilling the US after we generously awarded them a no-bid contract is mind-boggling- we're not talking a few dollars here and there, we're talking billions. Example: $180 for a $14 piece of plywood. We could have a long discussion about war profiteering, but you can't escape the Administration's ties to Halliburton, Betchel and others who are becoming increasing filthy rich from the decision to invade Iraq. It should disgust anyone who calls him/herself a fiscal conservative.

5. On Fiscal Conservatism. You're probably over your head in this argument. The tax cut pushed for by the Bush Administration was cautioned against by Alan Greenspan ( A Reagan appointee and universally respect economic guru) and did not measurably affect the economic engine in the long run. we had about a quarter of uptick before settling back into recession. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will reduce revenues by $1.35 trillion between 2001 and 2011, at a time when our deficits is growing faster by any standard than it has in our history. Bush's economic plan, as laid out by the GAO (General Accounting Office) will actually cost more than Kerry's plan, between now and 2010, by about a trillion dollars. There is no way, with a looming crisis in Social Security, that Bush (or Kerry, for that matter) can avoid raising taxes in the next 4 years, and it will disproportionally fall upon the middle class and poor taxpayers in Bush continues the current policy. And their numbers conveniently do not reflect any cost that the war in Iraq incurs. Remember that and think fondly on your $400 tax benefit in 2001.

5. Flat Tax. Flatly naive and incredibly unfair to the poor. Think of it this way: To a guy making $200K a year, a refrigerator might represent tiny fraction of a percent of his annual income in terms of his tax burden, but he needs the fridge, right? To a family of four making $18,000 per year (around the poverty line, of which there are 1.3 million more people than last year), this can represent almost 3 percent of their income. Hmm- that seems fair, right? I'm guessing you aren't making $200K a year in income H20, although you did mention that you "made a lot of money in the stock market" so you must really know the bulls (pun intended).

6. The Economic Impact of Tax Burdens. Your facts are wrong and skewed in the opposite direction from what's actually happening. When both payroll taxes and income taxes are considered, households with income below $50,000 per year (about the median income) have seen their aggregate federal tax burden increase, while upper-income households experienced a tax decrease. The top 1% of wealth holders now own nearly 40% of private wealth in this country, while the bottom 95% own about the same amount. Yet, the top 1% pays less than 20% of the aggregate federal tax burden, when all taxes are considered (including the regressive payroll taxes), not only the individual income tax. Middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5% of all payments in 2001 to 19.5% this year. These tax cuts, which favor the wealthy, deplete the federal coffers at a time when our economy cannot afford them. Basically, if you're making under $220,000 per year, the Bush plan is not doing you any favors. The bigger picture is that when the middle and lower class is not doing well, you (H20) and I and the rest of the the non-wealthy have less opportunity (that is more opinion than a hard fact, I'll admit; but I don't think it's a stretch assumption and neither do many non-partisan economists).

7. The Economic Future: The economy is not a disaster on the scale of the Great Depression, but it is not healthy and the Bush plan of ignoring the deficit does not make fiscal sense in any way, shape or form. In fact, he's made it an art form of trying to misrepresent the economic state of the Union. A recent report made by a Goldman Sachs analyst wrote that “the Office of Management and Budget has perfected the art of underpromising and overperforming in terms of its near-term budget deficit forecasts. This creates the impression that the deficit is narrowing when, in fact, it will be up sharply.” [FYI: in 2004, Goldman Sachs has given $64,750 to Kerry, but $282,725 to Bush.] In other words, Bush fudging the numbers for political gain. Some patriot- he's mortgaging the economic viability of your kids so he can hold on to four more years of power.

[Note: I am not anti-wealthy; and I have invested in my education and career so that I can become more prosperous. But I don't believe that this country was built to stand for a society where stepping on the necks of those who have less represents a sound economic policy. If everyone in the US has opportunity and no one is given a leg up over any other, I believe that the wealthy will benefit more than a tax burden would hinder.]

I ask you look at the facts objectively. If you believe something to be true and it supports your political beliefs, go through the exercise to see if it meets that test of truth. Be your own Devil's Advocate.

This is not a "Democratic" argument; truth be told, if the Republicans had done the right thing in 2000 and nominated McCain, I would have probably vote for him. But you guys are backing a bad bet for the long-term success of the country, and the Republican Party is now stuck on incredibly stupid issues like gay marriage at a time when the future of our country is at stake. I just don't understand it, other than it's become so much about power it makes me ill. I'm not the biggest Kerry fan either, but Bush as driven a wedge through the US and among the nations of the world unlike any other leader we've had.


Well, one more parting shot:

I read this little blurb about Leadership and Moral Convictions, and I think some of you will find it interesting.

A taxonomy of positions on Vietnam:

Category A: Exhibiting the strength of one’s moral convictions. Supported the war and served in Vietnam (John Kerry, John McCain) Opposed the war and served in Vietnam because it would have been unfair to force someone less fortunate to take one’s place (Al Gore) Opposed the war and dedicated oneself to anti-war movement at some personal risk, including conscientious objection. (This position is not as dangerous as serving in a war, but it is nevertheless just as moral. The war was evil. Putting oneself at legal and physical risk as many did to try to end this evil strikes me as an unimpeachable moral position, though given America’s political culture, it would also be untenable for any contemporary presidential candidate to hold.)

Category B: Exhibiting the strength of one’s moral convictions after protecting one’s posterior Opposed the war, protected self, and then worked for anti-war movement (Bill Clinton) This position seems to me to be the minimum necessary to consider oneself a moral being. Risking one’s person for one’s principles is a lot to ask for most of us, but the least one could ask is that if we identify an evil that is literally killing people, our peers included, one lifts a proverbial finger to stop it, say, by working for the presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern.

Category C: Having no convictions to protect save self-protection Opposed the war, protected self, let others worry about it (Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman) This is the position of those who merely opted out of the question, accepted their college deferments and went on with their lives and did not feel any sense of responsibility for their peers and countrymen.

Category D: Contradicting one’s alleged convictions in the service of protecting one’s posterior Supported the war, preferred to let others fight and die for it (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney) This seems to me to be the least defensible position imaginable. Bush and Cheney both used their privileged positions to protect themselves; Cheney says he did it because he had “other priorities.” Bush says he did it because he wanted to “better himself” by learning to fly planes. Whether he deserted his post or not—and I think he did-- it is incontrovertible that he wasted the government’s million dollar investment in his training by allowing his qualifications to lapse while he was still supposed to be on active duty. (And what if during this period, the Guard was actually needed, if say, Oklahoma had invaded Texas?)

One day, historians will attempt to explain just how two men who fall in category D somehow made the election about the moral rectitude of a man who fell into category A not once but twice. We have to admit this. This Rove feller really is a genius. Just when you thought the media couldn’t be any more irresponsible, he proved it had even more to give. (Most journalists today of the proper age, I imagine, fall into category B or C, with a significant number in D and a tiny, tiny minority in A.)
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #54
Lyons, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1991
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 256
I believe Clark responded to this quote about volcanoe emission being responsible for Greenshouse/Ozone gases, which I would like to expand upon. This topic is a favorite with the "Rush powered Republicans".

I worked at NOAA for the group who monitored greenhouse gases, but am not a chemist. The volcano theory which is a favorite with Rush Limbaugh is seriously flawed . He took this idea form a book which was written by a former head of the EPA under Bush I or Reagen. She was not a chemist either, but she was a Zoologist. The major problem with her theory is that Volcanos actual emit a fixed CL2 gas that is too heavy and stable to be transmitted to the altitude where the actual destruction of the ozone occurs, instead of Cl- which is needed to actual destroy Ozone. The Cl- that does destroy Ozone is transmitted by a much lighter CFC or HCFC molecule (Freon), which becomes unstable when the temperature reaches minus 60F, which occurs above 60,000 feet in the Arctic and Antartic regions. It would take a Supererruption to transmit CL2 gases high enough to even reach the Ozone layer, which has certainly not occured in many years not to mention that it is a very stable molecule. This was all confirmed with high altitude flights with instruments aboard a U-2 and published under a peer reviewed article in Nature. Her book had no peer review or scientific data to support her theories. Watch what you believe when you listen to Rush! There are plenty more of his theories to contest!!
Arn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #55
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14

The next thing I expect to hear is that it is Bush's fault that we are getting pummeled with hurricanes. Oh wait, I am sure that it is global warming. It has nothing to do with the cycles of the earth though. Im sure Bush is just doing it just so he can give away the contract to rebuild Florida and the rest of the Gulf Coast to Chaney's company.
For starters, this is a ridiculous and pointless statement.

Do you think that the economy can be blamed on Bush? Bush gave the Democrats about half of what they wanted in the form or programs and the other crap that you are blaming him for.

Those "programs and other crap" would translate into: Health care, $ for proper education for urban and very rural schools, welfare, social security, medicare, women's rights, and environmental problems. These are not crap or silly little programs. These issues affect the majority of the people in the United States and if you don't view them as valid and not crap then... if the name fits, wear it.

I for one have made a lot of money in the stock market. If it was that bad would that be the case? Unemployment is lower than it has been in quite a while. I know... they are low paying jobs. Well, suck it up and take a job if you dont have one. You can make a decision to make your own fortune or you can sit there and wait for some demoract program to take care of you.
Ah, another stellar comment! You really shine in this one. Put nicely, you are refering to what was once known as the "American Dream". This was the idea that you could show up at Ellis Island and could then pull yourself up by your boot straps and make it in America. Newsflash, America today isn't remotely what it once was. It no longer enables people to pull themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps. You should look at U.S. history and analyze that. That is what my grandfathers did and I know that this "dream" is almost extinct.

Do you care if someone doesnt like you? Who cares if they hate us? All they have to do is respect us and (how dare I say this) fear us. Who does everyone come to when they need assistance? I am sure they put their personal feelings aside in order to get help. Like it or not we are the big brother to every deserving country and some that dont deserve it. Doesnt the world deserve to be protected from tyrants and dictators.
Well, I don't know if you could come across anymore ethnocentic and egocentric. You are a prefect example of what kind of American the world loves to hate. Good thing it doesn't bother you. But if you ever want to travel outside of the U.S. I seriously suggest you keep this attitude to yourself, for all of our sakes.

The only fair way to do taxes is a flat tax.
I am interested, how this would exactly work and on what research you used to come to this "great" decision?


"Somewhere in Texas there is a village missing an idiot"
MBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #56
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
Never trust a man who doesn't believe in evolution. Damn retard thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old.
Lil Casey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #57
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 27
Mission accomplished. Maybe someone learned something in the past 48 hours. I dont care what they learned or which side of the isle they are on, but they were interested enough to open the post and that is what counts. For the last time, I just want people to quit accepting the words or others and finding out for themselves. If you go into your doctor and he tells you that your leg is going to fall off in the morning but you feel fine and have no pain, are you just going accept that and run out and throw away one of each of your shoes or are you going to get a 2nd opinion?

I am not saying that the education programs are crap programs. What I am saying is that you got part of what you wanted and you still are blaming Bush for doing nothing. We spend way to much on Educ. as it is. It has nothing to do with the money given to them they are still producing lower standards of education. Look at my grammer and spelling. For Christ's sakes, they want to do away with grades. How is that going to help.

Why is it up to the other people of our contry to take care of the people who dont want to work. I started out on the other side of the tracks in a small town in Kansas (let the Dorthy jokes begin) and I have been able to make something of myself whithout ever even going to college. What is stopping those people from doing the same thing? The only person that can make something out of nothing is the one that trys. I could sit around and feel sorry for myself and do nothing or I can go and do what it takes to get the job done. That is what the people back in the day did, what is stopping you? Thats right, YOU are.

I do travel and I have never heard a bad thing said about the US. Maybe it is becuase I am 6'2" 225 and they are scared or maybe things arent as bad as you say. I have never had anyone ask me what my opinions on the things we are talking about. Instead the ask me about some things that have seen here and what is it like. That is soon followed by "man I would like to go and see that sometime".

How is everyone paying the same % unfair. Why should the rich pay for the poor? What did they do to deserve that intitlement? If you need some work done on your house do you go over to your neighbor (who makes more money than you) and ask him to pay for it? I doubt he would and neither would you. I am tired of all of the programs that keep people in the position that they are in just because it is there. Why go and work when I can just sit here and get a check int he mail. Take a little responsiblity for yourself and quit asking for a handout. A national sales tax would be my selection if I had a choice. No more handouts, deal with it.

Enough fun for one election. Off to Idaho... see ya on the river. Dont be afraid to talk to me, I dont bite and you might even like me. Unless you are so shallow that you cant even talk to someone that has another opinion... I would never force my opinion on someone, i just like to discuss things and unlike some, I listen.

h2oxtc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #58
Livingston's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 679
on to the environment, Kyoto...

73 countries have become signatories to this pact [BBC]. Nearly all countries have ratified the pact including Japan and all 15 European Union states. In 2001 the United States provoked widespread international criticism by rejecting the Kyoto protocol [BBC] as soon as President Bush was inaugurated.

The US refused to sign the treaty, arguing that its economic interests would be threatened [BBC]. The US also opposed the Bonn refinement of Kyoto because of the cost to US business of Kyoto's prescriptions on the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions which contribute to climate change.

"Under the Protocol, the U.S. is supposed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent. With four percent of the world's population, the country accounts for about 25 percent of the Earth's greenhouse gas emissions.
European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström says 'But this ignorant, short sighted and selfish politician, long since firmly jammed into the pockets of the oil lobby, clearly couldn't care less. The talks in Bonn in July must now concentrate on world action independent of the U.S.' "

Lycos NewsWASHINGTON, DC, March 28, 2001 (ENS) )
US pulls out of Kyoto Protocol

"George W Bush has ... walked away from his international obligations, tearing up international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and ABM treaty, which, however imperfect, have helped bring peace and environmental protection. The least we can say is that he has embarked on a dangerous journey. Why?

The answer is corporate payback. This has been the defining trait of President Bush's administration. His election was a straightforward capitalist venture for the energy corporations. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies are the power behind Bush; together, they donated more than $50 million dollars to put him in the White House. As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried.

The message was: 'US corporations have the right to pollute the entire planet. The people and the environment don't matter.'"

-America the Unbeautiful

President Bush on the Kyoto Protocol said that "This is the American position because it's right for America" and, just to make the point clear, he added:

"We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America"

So there you go h2oxtc, you want this puppet who tells the rest of the world to f_ck off to be in control of either foriegn or environmental policy?
Livingston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #59
Snowmass ski patrol
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 86
You can argue with the ULTRA IGNORANT tell you are blue in the face....
What we need is true change, and organization. In our country, just like on this form the MAJORITY seems to be against Bush...... If this election turns out to be like the last and the person with the most popular votes looses WE THE PEOPLE have a civic duty to our country to not just roll over and accept another 4 years of hell.... WHAT CAN YOU & I DO to help institute these changes.... Maby thats what we should be discussing
Peace & Love with lots of POWDER to the people!!!!
Mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004   #60
Spits Hot Fire
N. Cascades, Washington
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 978

H20, I wish I could say I was goin to Idaho right now. I gotta admit though, I knew you didn't go to college, it shows. Do yourself a favor and listen to what these guys are saying on here.

FLOWTORCH is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dangerous conditions in the BC backcountry ToddG Winter Buzz 1 03-07-2007 10:40 AM
Dangerous wood in Foxton! soylent green Whitewater Kayaking 3 07-23-2006 06:56 PM
Dangerous Encounter at the Mystery Canal RiverWrangler Whitewater Kayaking 5 03-29-2006 06:57 PM
A Real dangerous Question erdvm1 Whitewater Kayaking 9 09-23-2004 07:52 PM
How dangerous is Frog's Rock Rapid on Ark/Fractions? cstork Whitewater Kayaking 2 09-07-2004 02:16 PM

» Classified Ads
Demo Jackson Karma L

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma LG whitewater kayak - lightly used...

Jackson Superstar

posted by Gary Rempe

Beautiful boat with awesome performance. Very lightly used...

2016 Dagger Axiom 9.0 (LG)

posted by atom

2016 Dagger Axiom 9.0 Used a handful of times. Great...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.