"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:00:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


By wanting a post to an elected office, you
deserve to be on the hot seat for the war crimes, environmental
idiocies, and other atrocities.

None of which have occurred.

Let's head off in another direction. Let's tweeze apart the first
paragraph
and pick a subject: "environmental idiocies". You say they have not
occurred.

Please list all policy changes instituted by your president and
explain
why
they are not at LEAST idiotic, if not criminal. You should be able to
come
up with at least three separate aspects of his environmental policies,
since
you read so much.


I'm not the one making the accusation.

You most certainly did. You used the phrase "none of which have
occurred",
which applied to the paragraph containing "environmental idiocies".

Which someone else claimed. I merely rebuffed that accusation. To the
best of my knowledge there are no major policies that Bush himself
have signed (Without congressional approval), which weakens any
environmental issues to any great degree.

The "best of your knowledge" is quite a disqualifier. Let's try this: Right
now, are you able to type a short list of legislation your deity has signed
or is considering, using just 1-5 words to describe each item? Like this:

1) Paint kitchen
2) Get shoes repaired
3) Stop bathing daughter - she's 14.

Hint: If you say you're not "up on those issues", you're guilty of treason.


Therefore, you believe these idiocies have not occurred.

Until you can prove that they have, I'll maintain my assertion.

I'm busy, too. YOU do the work this time.



You do not HAVE a
list in your mind because you're not in any way familiar with what your
deity has done.

Because it has not broken the threshold of importance, or it simply
isn't true. If it were, I'd be aware of it.

Not important? That's treason. "Simply isn't true"? Silly. It is true, but
you're not aware of it.



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?

It's highly unlikely that electric companies will take their
manufacturing
facilities overseas.

But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

OK. You think electric companies shouldn't have to be forced to make changes
because it would cost money. Right? Gee...ya think? Now we're getting
somewhere. Here's a question: What level of environmental damage would have
to occur before YOU would say "Uh oh. I think it's time for someone to slap
those boys and get things fixed"? Or, is there NO level of such damage that
would change your thinking?