Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:43:00 CDT
From:         Pam Leader <SYSPL@UOKMVSA.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gore on the Environment

>
> Wowsers!  Democrats can't win an election honestly.
 The GOP don't even try. Voters apparently don't care.
> Democrats are behaving like their caricature of Republicans; now we
> know why.
 That's it...The GOP have been winning, running, and ruining the
 country. The Demos may have figured out how the GOP keep winning.
 Could it be that Demos have decided that how you play the game is not
 as important as winning?
>
> >> >The GOP folks have made it clear that they will use any tripe they
> >> >can get their hands on to justify inaction on domestic or
> >> >environmental problems.
> >>
> >> Not so fast.  The GOP folks claim that certain measures don't make any
> >> sense.  Maybe they do, and maybe they don't, but their ACTUAL claim
> >> doesn't justify Leader's misrepresentation.  If you can't make your
> >> argument without misrepresenting your opponent's position....
> >   so, I exaggerated a little......
> >   but NOT MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But it was for a good cause, so it's okay.  Right?
 RIGHT!!!!
 Relax, we are talking Politics, aren't we?
>
> I'm pointing out that the record isn't what Leader asserts and
> even if it is, the credit/blame is shared.
 The record is basically bad. Everyone shares the blame except for
 the handfull of environmental activists who had the will and the
 political ability to do something about it.
>
> >   The primary reason why these minimal(and I do mean MINIMAL)
> >   improvements have been made is because the public was convinced
> >   that the environmental situation was extremely critical and
> >   corrective action could not be postponed any longer.
>
> Hold it.  First Leader claims that we're going downhill fast, and
> now we're going uphill slowly.
>
 No. Wrong. downhill fast, but thinking about getting our brakes fixed

> >   that they owe to Mother Earth that it is going to take to ensure
> >   our descendants survival on this planet!!!
>
> So, I take it Leader support's China's population control measures.
 You want to get down and dirty?
 We could start a whole new line of discussion with this one.
 Anyone game?
>
> >> Sure, things aren't perfect, but if you have to distort the direction....
> >  Speaking of distorting direction: Remember Reagan: "trees cause
> >  polution" ?
>
> Yes, I remember what he actually said.  He was right.  The LA basin
> has always had certain kinds of pollution because of the vegetation in
> that basin and the air patterns.  We're eliminating that vegetation
> through population increases, which is the most effective means of
> habitat destruction.
>
 Was the pollution coming from the trees? Or  were the trees causing
 the pollution to bother the wrong people. I have polluting trees in
 my yard too. Cedar leaves are very obnoxious.
> >  (and a side note: what about Bush
> >  and his cohorts claiming that Bush was responsible for the breakup
> >  of the Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in Europe? distortion?)
>
> What about it?  I'm perfectly willing to agree that Bush lies.  I'm
> looking at whether or not other people are different.  Leader isn't.
>
 Alot of people are different. Unfortunately, they rarely get elected.
 And yes, I'm throwing my good sense to the wind...I think Gore is
 different. I don't think Gore is lying about the environmental
 crises, and I think that if he becomes VP, we might actually get our
 brakes fixed. I don't think Gore has lied about the positive
 measures that have been taken. He is probably very happy about it, as
 I am. I am very prejudiced on this subject, because unlike most
 voters, I don't think the economy is the most important issue; I
 think the environment is the most important issue. If ever there was
 an issue about which the public needs to be spoonfed,at this point,
 it is the environment. I'm so used to politicians lying that I have
 accepted it as standard procedure. It only really gets to me when
 the lie is detrimental to the welfare of all. Significant
 environmental protection measures are going to cost people jobs and
 money. That is detrimental to a few. The needs of the globe
 outweigh the needs of the few. Then there is the philosophy/theory
 that humanity is doomed to extinction anyway so we might as well use
 up as much of the earth as we can while we are here. It's very
 much related to the philosophy that everyone on the planet(at least
 all Americans) can be rich. This philosophy was explained to me, by
 the  way, by young WASP Republicans during the Reagan administration.
 (p.s. sorry for resorting to personal priorities)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU