I'll say the same thing again, until the point sinks in...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple
chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury.

Yep.

That's why hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,
planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely
support life.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
I'll say the same thing again, until the point sinks in...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are
simple
chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury.

Yep.

That's why hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,
planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely
support life.

DSK
That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians 200+
years ago.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Gary" wrote in message
...

"Jim," wrote:

Not nice to take shots at a dead alzhimers suffering president


I actually meant to send that somewhere else. But since it's here...

He's the one that made the quotes. If he didn't want to be remembered
in this way he shouldn't have made himself a public figure and/or
shouldn't
have said these things. ~ My guess is that he'd be happy to be
remembered
this way...he said these things and probably meant most of them.

By the way - I liked Reagan. I didn't / don't agree with some of what he
stood for, but I did agree with some things and, mostly, I did think
that
on
the whose he was an honorable man trying to do the right things.

Hard to defend a statment like this though...
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan,
1981

Maybe it was taken out of context or some such?

Gary


Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are
simple
chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. And when they burn
(they are genetically designed to thrive on forest fires (the small
normal
ones that nature provides but we have stopped. The buildup of
undergrowth
due to our stopping the forest fires has caused conditions that mean
much
higher temps and the trees die)) they also put out massive amounts of
carbon
dioxide and complex hydrocarbons when they burn.


Good grief, Jeff...reads like you are reposting from the Bush's "screw
the environment briefing book."

Trees are bad, cars are good, and if we don't cut down all the forests
so the loggers can turn a buck, why, disaster will follow in short order.

No, Harry it just seems so to one who doesn't see the big picture. If you
read it you would see that I am advocating BACK TO NATURE. Do not intervene
without much thought in natures processes like for example stopping forest
fires. Stopping all forest fires was a policy for so many years that it has
created conditions that promote the higher temp fires (because of
undergrowth) that KILL forests. Also, I mention "simple chains and don't
contain lead, sulfur or mercury" that means that trees are not as dangerous
to us as cars unless they burn.

And Harry, the "pilotless drone" as you call him has not spouted any anti
environment rehtoric but has advocated a rational reasonable course for this
country. This is a much admired policy by those of us on the right and
center.

Harry you knee jerk react to anything that's said here. Is this an attempt
to flame the news group, is it a thought out policy on your part? I have a
hard time beliving that you really believe most of your posts as some of
them have shown that you do have a mind.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:

Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.

... hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,
planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely
support life.



Jeff Rigby wrote:
That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians 200+
years ago.


Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog."

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and
"coercion."

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:


Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and
ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush.

I've not seen the slightest evidence that anything Bush "thinks" is either
well-thought-out or moral. Bush is the ultimate expedient politician,
pandering to one group of righties after another.

Your not "Seeing" any evidence doesn't surprise me. You can't just listen
to the news, you have to read what is said by the parties involved. When
you do this you will probably say; " but that's not what he said". That
happens to me allot. Your problem is that you want to believe what you read
and you probably seek out news that supports your bias.

On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the
decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy"
requirements. On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have
enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable
and good for the country in both the short term and long term.

One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the
CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The
previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency.
In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular.

It is costing us lives and money. Much of the cost and lives can be
attributed to educating the world to these new facts. He means what he says
and America backs him. I expect that our enemies are rethinking their
strategy in the face of this reality. Expect interesting times. I expect
that Iran does not want us out of Iraq any time soon as this frees us to
respond to them. But they don't want a Democracy in Iraq either as this
would destabilize them. I expect that they will try to start a religious
war in Iraq.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the
decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy"
requirements.

How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand
reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies.

To say that we, the American public, cannot be allowed to know the
results of our foreign policy because of "secrecy requirements" is
ridiculous.

... On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have
enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable
and good for the country in both the short term and long term.

Like what?

The Bush/Cheney "environmental policy" is 'rape it all while there's
still something left.' The EPA has been almost totally dismantled as an
enforcement agency. Of course, research on the environment and on health
issues is also chopped, so that reduces the amount of bad news filtering
out to the public.

Educational policy? Name *one* Bush/Cheney program that has actually
furthered any level of education, that has had any positive result in
this field. Take a look at NOYB's recent post on the subject, all he has
is some silly propaganda.

Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS
reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully
supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for
their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the
middle class and increase 401(k) deductible. But no... that would be too
simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of
kickbacks from favored Wall St firms...


One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the
CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The
previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency.
In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular.

It is costing us lives and money.

And this is a success in your opinion?

Your definition of "success" is rather wierd. Your definition of
"conservative" seems to be rather flexible too.

DSK

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote:



How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand
reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies.

Who cares what they say? They form their opinions on equally biased
propaganda. When we succeed it makes them look worse. They have a
vested interest in seeing us fail, thus justifying their envy-based
hatred of our consumer-oriented society.



Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS
reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully
supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for
their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the
middle class and increase 401(k) deductible.

If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've
described essentially what he wants to do. People over 55 would be
unaffected by the plan, so nothing changes. Younger people will be
given the OPTION to divert some of their SS taxes to private INTEREST
bearing accounts,(similar to a 401K) which should grow at a much
greater rate than current SS does. When those people reach retirement
age, they get less from SS, but they will more than make up for it by
the proceeds of the equivalent 401K account.

But no... that would be too
simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of
kickbacks from favored Wall St firms...

That is liberal propaganda, aimed at swaying support away from the
proposal. What "kick backs" are there to a 401K account?

I'd rather see my money working for me instead of sitting in a S.S.
fund that might be eliminated at the stroke of a pen by the time I
retire. That's why I laugh when democrats bandy the word "guaranteed"
fund when they refer to S.S.. There are no guarantees when it comes to
government policies. They re all subject to change. At least if you
have some of your money in a private account, YOU control it, not the
government.

Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:

Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.




The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that the
individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one uses a
decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still, eventually,
make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:09:02 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:


Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and
ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush.

I've not seen the slightest evidence that anything Bush "thinks" is either
well-thought-out or moral. Bush is the ultimate expedient politician,
pandering to one group of righties after another.

Your not "Seeing" any evidence doesn't surprise me. You can't just listen
to the news, you have to read what is said by the parties involved. When
you do this you will probably say; " but that's not what he said". That
happens to me allot. Your problem is that you want to believe what you read
and you probably seek out news that supports your bias.

On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the
decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy"
requirements. On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have
enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable
and good for the country in both the short term and long term.

One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the
CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The
previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency.
In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular.

It is costing us lives and money. Much of the cost and lives can be
attributed to educating the world to these new facts. He means what he says
and America backs him. I expect that our enemies are rethinking their
strategy in the face of this reality. Expect interesting times. I expect
that Iran does not want us out of Iraq any time soon as this frees us to
respond to them. But they don't want a Democracy in Iraq either as this
would destabilize them. I expect that they will try to start a religious
war in Iraq.


For some, the policies, actions, outcomes, whatever, have no bearing on the fact
that they wish to post nothing but anti-Bush rhetoric.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."