Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

I use him because the two of you are (slightly) functioning as a tag
team. So far, he hasn't begun his standard rant about being
controlled, but it's lurking there. I suspect that behind your
facade, you've got the same issues.

So if that's your problem with him, I take it you're a
fascist/socialist who abhors freedom? That's basically what you're
saying if that's your problem with Fritz.

See? I knew it was lurking there! :-) Another one who only sees
extremes.

Let me ask you another question which you will not answer: Let's say
that 10 scientists for whom you have nothing but the utmost in respect
proved unequivocally that automobile exhaust was by far the largest
human contribution to global warming. Never mind how it compared to
other sources, like coal-fired power plants. Not trains. Not oil
furnaces in peoples' homes. Not big ships with smelly smokestacks. Only
cars.

Let's introduce another interesting factor: Oil companies magically
discover oil deposits larger than they ever imagined, in places where
they can obtain it cheaply, with little environmental risk. Result:
Gasoline goes back to $1.83 a gallon. I'm introducing this idea for a
reason, which I may or may not reveal after you answer the question
below.

Something needs to be done about automobile emissions now, and you're
elected to a position where you have the ability to wield some power.
What would you do?

People who constantly deal in hypotheticals are the ones who lack the
intelligence or maturity to process the real world.

However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the word
"gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil", nor
"environment", my oath of office would compel me to do nothing.

Hmm, so you think that everything that GWB does, says, or tries to get
other countries to do is tied directely to the Constitution?