On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:37:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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. 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.

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?

Dave