or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Republicans want you to pay for weather... Maybe air is next?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Republicans want you to pay for weather... Maybe air is next? - Page 2

post #31 of 114
I wasn't talking actual numbers, idiots, but percentages!!!!!!

Obviously the actual numbers are growing and they mean nothing. But the numbers are growing on each side.

Dubya got the biggest PERCENTAGE of popular votes since his father, hows that?
post #32 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCWVA
I live in/near DC and I go to sites like this to get away from the politics. As far as I know it snows the same amount on both Democrats and Republicans.

They're all politicians, most of them are corrupt, lie on a regular basis, and only do things that benefit themselves personally.

They all want to spend our $ and control our lives.

If you think differently, then you are naive

Maybe we need a weather tax!
if you live in/near DC you will never get away from politics.

the point of THIS part of EpicSki's forums is to discuss politics.

I am afraid I do not see anything sensible, logical, or appealing about your argument.

If your point is that you were hoping that you could find everyone in here a Bush Supporter, I am sorry to disappoint you with the huge glaring problem of INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.

thank you for your commentary. good night. :
post #33 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATZ
True, Kerry got the SECOND most votes for president EVER!

The odds in Ohio of the results coming out as they did compared to the exit polls were 250,000 to 1.

Liberal is derived from the same Latin word as LIBERTY! It's not a dirty word. It means open minded and non-biased.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20 you have no heart".
"If you're not a conservative when you're 40 you have no brain".
(Winston Churchill)
"If you're still a conservative when you're 55 you're incapable of learning from you're mistakes".
(ananamous)
SLATZ,

you didn't describe a LIBERAL there.

LIBERALS are the left-leaning, government-as-your-daddy-everywhere-except-the-bedroom, PBS- and NPR-worshipping, triple latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, whale-saving, whole-lotta-good-intentions-having Al Gore worshippers. the ones afraid of Howard Dean, who is the type of LIBERAL you describe.

we need a new term. nutbag moralist neocons and hack scoundrels like Karl Rove have co-opted the term LIBERAL for scapegoat purposes and it has too many negative emotional connotations now.

and besides, it really does describe a certain stereotype that I've mocked hyphen-pregnant above.

I like liberty.

but Liberals scare me.

Libertarians scare me more.

Neocons scare me even more.

what happened to fiscal responsibility, eh? small, streamlined gov't? and a sensible policy toward natural resources that are not renewable?

those are not negatives in any decent person's mind, are they?
post #34 of 114
Thread Starter 
On the political side. I believe that both parties have ceased to serve our interest. See, if I dislike both parties equally I am not biased in the way I presented this topic.

I have never seen anything that matches the Pacific Northwest Mountain Weather ForeCast, which is fed by the National Weather Service and other tax funded agencies. The following example is what some pinhead politician wants to take away from me, and frankly that makes me angry.



MOUNTAIN WEATHER FORECAST FOR THE OLYMPICS WASHINGTON CASCADES
AND MT HOOD AREA
NORTHWEST WEATHER AND AVALANCHE CENTER SEATTLE WASHINGTON
1200 PM PDT FRI APR 22 2005

NWAC Program administered by:
USDA-Forest Service
with cooperative funding and support from:
Washington State Department of Transportation
National Weather Service
National Park Service
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Pacific Northwest Ski Area Association
Friends of the Avalanche Center
and other private organizations.

This forecast is prepared primarily for federal, state and
private snow safety programs in Washington and Northern Oregon.

WAZ012-017-018-019-025-042-ORZ011-231700-

&&

...SPRING WET SNOW AVALANCHES LIKELY THROUGH THE WEEKEND...

The most sustained storm cycle of the winter was finally seen in
late March and early April. Sites at Hurricane Ridge and at
higher elevations in the Cascades received from 7 to 15 feet of
snowfall during that time, with the most in the Mt Baker area, at
overall cool temperatures.

The warm weather and lack of refreezing at night the past couple
days has been helping cause fairly widespread wet snow avalanches
of the recent snow. For a change it has been a bit warmer in the
north Cascades than the south Cascades the past couple days. This
is due to a large weak low pressure system and cooler air mass
lingering near the California coast. The DOT crew at Chinook Pass
has been easily triggered wet snow avalanches on south facing
slopes. Several recent reports on Turns-All-Year for the
Washington Cascades also indicate wet snow avalanches and deep
wet snow conditions. The Whistler ski area reports widespread and
some large wet snow avalanches the past couple days in the back
country. Snow pit reports in the Olympics and Cascades indicate
some lingering crust layers in the upper meter of snow, with
faceting near the mid March crust at 1-2 meters below the
surface.

The large weak low pressure system and cooler air mass should
continue to linger near the California coast through the weekend.
Some showers in the south Washington Cascades on Friday should
become more widespread in the Olympics and Cascades on Saturday
and Sunday. Snow levels should generally range from about 8-9000
feet on Friday and Saturday then drop a bit on Sunday. However,
warm temperatures and solar effects should continue to cause
natural or triggered wet loose or possible wet slab avalanches.
Initial surface wet snow avalanches may step down and entrain
deeper snow or snow to buried crust layers and isolated large
slides are possible. However avalanches involving deeper
weaknesses in the snow pack are difficult to predict.

We would like to remind back country enthusiasts to use caution
through the weekend. It should be a good plan to avoid areas
below cliffs, cornices, steep sun warmed south facing slopes,
gullies and avalanche run out zones. Note that avalanche activity
may not be restricted to south facing slopes and may extend below
the snow line. Wet snow instability can sometimes be tested by
pushing snow onto test slopes. Also remember although wet loose
snow avalanches may start slowly they can be powerful and set up
like concrete when they stop.

&&

NWAC weather data and forecasts are also available by calling
206-526-6677 for Washington, 503-808-2400 for the Mt Hood area,
or by visiting our Web site at www.nwac.us.

Ferber/Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center

$$
post #35 of 114
Back to the bill...

I wonder how many businesses will be put-out to have to pay for their weather services rather than get them from NOAA? I can think of many types of endevours that need accurate weather forcasts (ski areas are one, commercial navigation another). I wonder if there will be a large counter-lobby by these corporate users that will appeal to the pocketbooks of the powers that be?
post #36 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit2941
I wasn't talking actual numbers, idiots, but percentages!!!!!!
I get it. I'm an idiot because I can't read your mind instead of your words. Thanks for the clarification.
post #37 of 114
This type of thread needs to go in the epicski lounge, not the general ski forum.
post #38 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
I get it. I'm an idiot because I can't read your mind instead of your words. Thanks for the clarification.
If you used your head in the slightest bit it wasn't that hard to figure out.
post #39 of 114
Now if this was down in the Supporters lounge We could have ourselves a real bar room brawl. As for NOAA Thats one agancy that i am happy my tax dollors funds.
By the way this congress hasn't seen a porkbarral project or corprate welfare program that it didn't like. Bush and the Republicans, They maybe socially conservitive But they are in no way shape or form fiscally conservitive. Instead of tax and spend we now have barrow and spend. Someday the bill collector is going to be knocking on the door.
post #40 of 114
This is ridiculous. Reality is there are some things the government can provide more efficiently like weather service and public roads. Privatizing them so someone can make a profit doesn't serve the public any good and that includes businesses. Privatizing the weather is extremely dangerous because the amount of money required to enter the field is immense thus causing an uncompetitive market.
post #41 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit2941
I wasn't talking actual numbers, idiots, but percentages!!!!!!

Obviously the actual numbers are growing and they mean nothing. But the numbers are growing on each side.

Dubya got the biggest PERCENTAGE of popular votes since his father, hows that?
You're WRONG there too:

2004

Bush II 52%, Kerry 48%; Margin – 4%



2000

Bush II 48.0%, Gore 48.4%; Margin – (.4%)



1996

Clinton 50%, Dole 42%; Margin – 8%



1992

Clinton 43.3%, Bush I 37.7%; Margin – 5.6%



Clinton had an 8% margin of victory. Shrub had 4%. Hows THAT? EDIT: In fact, you have to go back almost 30 years (1976) to the Carter/Ford election before you find a SLIMMER margin of victory. Pretty pathetic performance, actually.
post #42 of 114
Ah Clinton - what a fine president. With the exception of the blue dress incedent, Clinton was the best ever.

We wouldn't be in this mess if he were still president and stupid issues like this would not waste our time. That was an era - when USA was a true world power and respected, for the most part, as well.

This plan for the weather service is just one more example of hatefulness and contempt for the people. These guys don't sleep at night thinking of ways to screw us. I can't understand, how could it be that we voted him in. Wait until you see who's next.
post #43 of 114
bandit's naivete is laughable.

bandit, are you even out of high school yet?
post #44 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
This type of thread needs to go in the epicski lounge, not the general ski forum.


Epicski seems to be more about politics than skiing lately.
post #45 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
This is ridiculous. Reality is there are some things the government can provide more efficiently like weather service and public roads. Privatizing them so someone can make a profit doesn't serve the public any good and that includes businesses. Privatizing the weather is extremely dangerous because the amount of money required to enter the field is immense thus causing an uncompetitive market.
Leave it to us Montanans to remind people of what makes the most sense, logically and fiscally.

well said Rio. and 100% TRUE about the NOAA forecasting. the most laughable thing of all is that everyone's weather comes from NOAA. private companies package NOAA information for a profit, when it's free on the NOAA website.
post #46 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
I get it. I'm an idiot because I can't read your mind instead of your words. Thanks for the clarification.
now pheft, don't go exposing bandit's glaring weaknesses.
post #47 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
You're WRONG there too:

2004

Bush II 52%, Kerry 48%; Margin – 4%



2000

Bush II 48.0%, Gore 48.4%; Margin – (.4%)



1996

Clinton 50%, Dole 42%; Margin – 8%



1992

Clinton 43.3%, Bush I 37.7%; Margin – 5.6%



Clinton had an 8% margin of victory. Shrub had 4%. Hows THAT? EDIT: In fact, you have to go back almost 30 years (1976) to the Carter/Ford election before you find a SLIMMER margin of victory. Pretty pathetic performance, actually.
52% is the highest percentage. That's what I'm saying. And I AM correct - your data proves it.
post #48 of 114
Nice weather thread!
post #49 of 114
Oh btw, the NOAA was created by a Republican administration to begin with.
post #50 of 114
Bandit:

OK, seeing as you are changing the story once again (just like your flip-flopper hero shrub), do you now realize that the % of votes any candiate gets is subject to how many candidates enter the race? Let me put this in a simplistic way that you can understand: it's kinda like a slice of pie: the more people that want a piece, the smaller each piece is. Look at 1980: your much revered Reagan got only 50.7% of the vote by your logic. Now surely you have to admit that Reagan was, at the very least, a more popular President than shrub.
post #51 of 114
When I'm fishing in Maine, I simply go online to the NOAA offshore weather buoy where I'm headed, usually the northern Jeffery's Ledge, and read the reports. I also use Gray's marine weather service; it parrots the NOAA report. You simply cannot get enough reports when you head offshore. Oh, and the large buoys are fun to pee off of, too.
post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
Bandit:

OK, seeing as you are changing the story once again (just like your flip-flopper hero shrub), do you now realize that the % of votes any candiate gets is subject to how many candidates enter the race? Let me put this in a simplistic way that you can understand: it's kinda like a slice of pie: the more people that want a piece, the smaller each piece is. Look at 1980: your much revered Reagan got only 50.7% of the vote by your logic. Now surely you have to admit that Reagan was, at the very least, a more popular President than shrub.
Nawww, really? Regardless, the % of votes still indicates that a larger percentage of the population wanted him as their president(more then half). Doesn't that speak for itself?

I'm not getting into a pissing contest over one comment. I simply said something to the effect of him having the most percentage of votes in a long time and as usual, people try to split hairs. What I said was correct and I stick by it. End of story.
post #53 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul jones
Bandit

No, instead of re-instating the draft, he forces dedicated solders to bear an unfair amount of the burden for his unnecessary war. Meanwhile cutting benefits to veterans.

Bandit, you can throw around "liberal" as much as you like. The Bush administration is nothing but endless bull$h!#.
Second those thoughts.

Even though Bush fawns over our soliders publicly the administration s**ts all over the vets and returning soldiers by withdrawing or decreasing benefits.

Pure hypocrisy. Our soliders and vets deserve better than lip service for political purposes. Personally, I am grateful to the VA for taking care of my father (WWII vet) when he needed help the last 2 years of his life and could not take care of himself.
post #54 of 114
Nice. The last 2 posts mention urination. I like it.

Heh, make that 3 posts!
post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit2941
Doesn't that speak for itself?

What exactly does it speak for itself? That more people in America believed in lies than truth.

The rest of world are very much against Bush's pro-war and empire, pro-debt and spend, pro-bigger and centralized government, pro-corporate feudalism, big business and secret contracts, pro-lies and ignorance, pro-idle investor class and anti-labor class, anti-middle class and poor, anti-environment and animal rights, anti-state rights, neo-conservative policies. So, the majority of humans on this planent does not agreed with you either.
post #56 of 114
SCWCA ----------Right on Target ! thumbs up
post #57 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by agent.5
What exactly does it speak for itself? That more people in America believed in lies than truth.

The rest of world are very much against Bush's pro-war and empire, pro-debt and spend, pro-bigger and centralized government, pro-corporate feudalism, big business and secret contracts, pro-lies and ignorance, pro-idle investor class and anti-labor class, anti-middle class and poor, anti-environment and animal rights, anti-state rights, neo-conservative policies. So, the majority of humans on this planent does not agreed with you either.
Again. Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one. I have mine, and they're not changing. I highly doubt yours are either.
post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
Bandit:

OK, seeing as you are changing the story once again (just like your flip-flopper hero shrub), do you now realize that the % of votes any candiate gets is subject to how many candidates enter the race? Let me put this in a simplistic way that you can understand: it's kinda like a slice of pie: the more people that want a piece, the smaller each piece is. Look at 1980: your much revered Reagan got only 50.7% of the vote by your logic. Now surely you have to admit that Reagan was, at the very least, a more popular President than shrub.
Just to clarify the 1980 results and put them into perspective:
Reagan did get 51%, but Carter had 41% and Anderson had 7% (rounded up numbers). Reagan also won 46 of 50 states and the electoral votes was 489 to 49. Not even a race..................... so when you say Reagan got ONLY 50.7% that does not tell the whole story. 50.7% in the 1980 race was a runaway.
post #59 of 114
Don't you get it? I'm pissing on the posts
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
Just to clarify the 1980 results and put them into perspective:
Reagan did get 51%, but Carter had 41% and Anderson had 7% (rounded up numbers). Reagan also won 46 of 50 states and the electoral votes was 489 to 49. Not even a race..................... so when you say Reagan got ONLY 50.7% that does not tell the whole story. 50.7% in the 1980 race was a runaway.
I can't I'm spending any more time on this thread, but that's my point exactly. Reagan's victory could only be characterised as a populist mandate (for better or worse). But for sheople like Bandit to make any claim that Bush (I or II) has any similar mandate, he is not being honest w/ himself. Or worse, he is buying into the parties aparatchik to a degree he himself doesn't even realize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
Just to clarify the 1980 results and put them into perspective:
Reagan did get 51%, but Carter had 41% and Anderson had 7% (rounded up numbers). Reagan also won 46 of 50 states and the electoral votes was 489 to 49. Not even a race..................... so when you say Reagan got ONLY 50.7% that does not tell the whole story. 50.7% in the 1980 race was a runaway.
I can't believe I'm spending any more time on this thread, but that's my point exactly. Reagan's victory could only be characterised as a populist mandate (for better or worse). But for sheople like Bandit to make any claim that Bush (I or II) has any mandate, he is not being honest w/ himself. Or worse, he is buying into the parties' propaganda aparatchik to a degree he himself doesn't even realize.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Republicans want you to pay for weather... Maybe air is next?