On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ Man wrote:

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?


Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

In article ,
says...

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?


Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? The answer is obviously "Yes".

In article 095eac6b-2fe5-4607-8152-
,
says...

On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? The answer is obviously "Yes".

Horse****.

On Aug 26, 2:08*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article 095eac6b-2fe5-4607-8152-
,
says...





On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? *Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? *The answer is obviously "Yes".

Horse****.

This is the same sort of governmental insanity that is causing kids
lemonaide stands to be shut down:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...monade-stands/
It is very clear that govt is waaaaaaaay overfunded if they have time
to worry about such things. The solution is lower taxes. If you vote
for higher taxes, they will not be used to solve problems but will be
used to CAUSE problems like this.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

It is very clear that govt is waaaaaaaay overfunded if they have time
to worry about such things. The solution is lower taxes. If you vote
for higher taxes, they will not be used to solve problems but will be
used to CAUSE problems like this.

==================

And that's a fact. No one derives any benefit whatsoever from this
kind of governmental stupidity, and we as taxpayers get to pay the
bill for it.

Anyone involved with that raid should be fired.

In article 99187cd7-1cb3-4f84-b6d1-99755a1aa8d7
@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 26, 2:08*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article 095eac6b-2fe5-4607-8152-
,
says...





On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? *Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? *The answer is obviously "Yes".

Horse****.

This is the same sort of governmental insanity that is causing kids
lemonaide stands to be shut down:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...monade-stands/
It is very clear that govt is waaaaaaaay overfunded if they have time
to worry about such things. The solution is lower taxes. If you vote
for higher taxes, they will not be used to solve problems but will be
used to CAUSE problems like this.

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. Granted, government has
run amok. But, in the case of decimation of the rain forests, the
government is right.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? The answer is obviously "Yes".

Which obviously isn't the point, since it wasn't Gibson that was
directly causing the problem.