wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both
pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What
exactly
did you see that was political in either?

Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll
answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans
are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more
pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with
some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it?
There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces.
I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans
didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we
wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in
nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the
brighter right wingers here.


So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the
Bay decline.

Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always
vote for stronger environmental laws?