EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

R Walker rww at neosoft.com
Thu Nov 14 15:36:28 EST 1996

David Whitt <davwhitt at med.unc.edu> wrote in article
<56fk0d$jo at newz.oit.unc.edu>...
> In article <01bbd23d$f86a1380$660c6dce at tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <rww at neosoft.com> wrote:
> >David Whitt <davwhitt at med.unc.edu> wrote in article
> >> With people like you now we know why the Republicans lost the white
> >> in '92 and '96.
> >
> >Uh pardon me.   The white house is based on the economy.  Economy doing
> >poorly, incumbant looses.  Economy doing well, incumbant wins.   92. 
> >Republican incumbant, poor economy, Democrat wins.  88, Republican
> >incumbant, good economy, Republican wins.  96, Democrat incumbant, good
> >economy, Democrat wins.   I don't see where this is just to hard to
> >out.
> Economy is ONE factor that affects the presidential election.  It is also
> a poor guide to go by because the president has limited affect on the
> economy and that effect usually takes years to show.  Buffoons vote the
> way you describe.

I know that, but it is the buffoons in the freaking 20% middle that vote
way, *AND* simultaneously determine the election.  Dole got his 40% base.
Clinton got his 40% base.   The freaking buffoon middle went towards
and Perot.   And since Perot has no significant base, Clinton wins.

I wish more people realized how little impact the president has on the
economy, but the only folks who seem to understand this, also have
reasonably strong party identification, and so are in the 40/40 split
group.  (Even if they call themselves "indepentent", they know who
they are going to vote for, based on *real* issues that matter to them.
and so will identify with one party or the other, mostly.)

> >Of course, the white house doesn't write legislation... hheheheheheheh.
> >We *definately* got the better end of *THIS* deal.
> An, as shown so clearly in '94-95, the Republican Congress can't pass the
> legislation without presidential authorization and the Democratic
> members' votes.  

Certainly.  But I'm not the one wanting more environmental legislation,
am I.   I'm perfectly happy to see the current laws remain on the books 
with only the most superficial of tweaking from presidentially issued 
broad permits (like the 10 acre ESA/Wetlands deal), and from tweaking
from congressional appropriations bills, (like the California Desert deal).

I think the 10 acre exemption has done a lot to quiet down the horror
stories of lower/middle class slobs getting tied up in ESA/Wetlands
regs that they could not hope to comply with or even understand.

I also think as the supreme court gradually opens up with its 10th 
amendment hammer, we'll see a lot of the things conservatives get
upset about disappear.    And don't underestimate it, the 10th 
amendment is a ruthless squisher of federal legislation, in the
hands of a court that thinks the 10th amendment is very important,
which the current court obviously does.   [people who dream about
some conservative justice quiting just as they are starting to have
fun, really need to go seek psychiatric help.]

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list