On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!