Subject:
|
Re: Who does W. Love? BIG OIL!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:54:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > I can't believe you think his concerns are noble.
>
> I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't demonstrated, here
> or in Texas, that he's one of those kinds of politicians yet.
He's demonstrated in two big ways so far that he's not the President he
was campaigning to be. The "Uniter-not-a-divider" has rammed far-Right
policy and cabinet appointments down the throat of bipartisanship, and now
he's backed off a campaign pledge re: emissions. Seems like business as
usual to me.
> > His concern is for all those big factories that are going to line his
> > pockets (or donate to his next campaign, or whatever) when he allows them to
> > spew carbon dioxide in copious amounts.
>
> That would be better than selling "nucular" technology to foreign enemies
> for campaign contributions, wouldn't it?
Has this been proven? If so, why was Clinton impeached for being a lech
rather than a felon, and why was Gore allowed to run at all? If you cannot
back up quid pro quo claim with facts, don't waste time stirring the pot.
If you can back it up, then the question remains why Clinton and Gore
weren't charged for these crimes.
> All he said was that he wasn't going to do it right now because of high
> energy prices, that doesn't preclude him from doing it in the future.
Fair enough. We'll see.
> My point was that only the U.S. is the target and concern for all of the
> controls and restrictions by international interests. Environmentalists feel
> guilty about our prosperity. Homeless activists (same ilk) will sleep on
> sewer grates so they can "identify" with them, but won't accept them into
> their own homes to shelter them.
More propaganda and rhetoric, coupled with baseless pseudo-psychoanalysis
of the sort gleaned from talk radio.
> What does that achieve? CFC's were the boogey-man of the past and were also
> shown to little to no effect on the environment.
Really? In which studies? I'd actually like to read those.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Who does W. Love? BIG OIL!!!
|
| (...) I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't demonstrated, here or in Texas, that he's one of those kinds of politicians yet. (...) That would be better than selling "nucular" technology to foreign enemies for campaign (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
