On Apr 22, 9:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> He will never be PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
> no matter how he rises. Is it not that pitiful???
>
> On Apr 21, 8:05 pm, JTEM <jte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Saw John Kerry today, together with his lovely wife,
> > during a talk/signing session for their new book on
> > the environment.
Please the next time you see him, drive a stake thru his heart before
he and the troll, he calls a wife can screw up another american
election.
Horseface and ketchup girl need to mosey on back to the I -de- ho
chalet, to at least give the Democratic party, a chance to win the
national election.
>
> > For anyone afraid he's trying to squeeze into Al Gore's
> > territory: Relax. Al Gore wrote the forward for the book.
>
> > I have to say that I was a little surprised by John Kerry.
> > Then again, if us native New Englanders who've known
> > him since his days as Lt. Governor rarely see him
> > without the same media filters that the rest of the nation
> > see him through. Anyhow, this was exactly the John
> > Kerry you were routing for in 04, and thought you only
> > wished existed.
>
> > This was a strong John Kerry, unafraid to tell people
> > what they didn't want to hear, but an intelligent &
> > articulate John Kerry who could (and did) offer very good
> > reasons for doing so.
>
> > The most relevant (for alt.atheism) example was when
> > someone asked him about selling/phrasing the environment
> > as a moral issue.... a rather obvious strategy for reaching
> > the Reich wing crowd. As John Kerry pointed out, that only
> > works if they believe the science. If they don't believe the
> > science then there's no issue in their minds to speak of,
> > moral or otherwise.
>
> > I'm not sure I agree with the Senator on that one. I mean,
> > he's right about the wing nuts not believing the science,
> > but he's doubting (or seriously downplaying) the hearding
> > instincts of the Reich wing sheep. That is, if they hear
> > enough people phrasing the environment in moral terms
> > then, for them, it becomes a moral issue.
>
> > Still, I have to admire his giving an answer that was clearly
> > not desired.
>
> > Other issues, though far less relevant here, where a local
> > issue concerning a wind farm & nuclear energy... both of
> > which I agreed with him on, though perhaps not entirely
> > for the same reasons.
>
> > I won't bore you with the local issue, but he told a large
> > crowd (one that I would conservatively estimate to be
> > close to 90% anti-nuclear) that, yes, nuclear energy was
> > going to be a part of our near-term national energy strategy.
> > We simply have no choice.
>
> > Not his words -- he spoke more generically -- but one
> > reality I can think of is how the promise of ethanol has
> > already raised food prices across the Americas (both
> > continents), yet is still incapable of so much as meeting
> > our annual increase in demand for oil... never mind replace
> > any oil we are already im****ting.
>
> > Anyways, talking about nuclear energy to this crowd may
> > have taken some guts, but what took real balls was the
> > fact that he didn't sugar coat it in the least. He told everyone
> > flat out that, long term, with all the expense of building
> > nuclear reactors & storing the waste, there's no way that
> > nuclear energy will be able to compete with future
> > technologies. It's just plain too expensive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
