Dave Hall wrote:


I'm not the one making the accusation. It's up to you to make the
point that this president is somehow "bad" for the environment. If and
when you do, I'll be more than willing to dissect them piece by piece
and explain to you why you're chasing shadows.

What you are saying here, ****-for-brains, is that no matter what facts
anyone posts that show Bush to be an anti-environmentalist, you'll
attempt to dispute them.


You also have to consider the point of diminished returns, and the
economic balancing act. Is it more important to push for the ultimate
in environmental protection, which ultimately results in high costs
for manufacturers to implement? Or is it more important that these
companies stay in this country and continue to provide jobs?

There's no mutual exclusivity in protecting the environment and in
providing jobs. In fact, in just one area, cleaning up our environment
and producing much cleaner and more energy efficient vehicles, will
provide millions of new jobs. Just repairing the damage to
infrastructure caused by pollution would produce at least a million new
jobs, since we are barely keeping our highways and bridges operational
these days.

You really have your head way up your ass. Your children are going to
inherit a horrific planet, Dave, in addition to a bunch of totally
pooched values.



--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.