"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?

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:44:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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?


I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:44:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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?


I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install? The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5 years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not expect
to pay more for produce?

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:53:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5 years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:53:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing
the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why
5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies
here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who
do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear
reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part
of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5
years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not
expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

What??? If *ONE* group of products becomes more expensive, you expect to get
a raise from your employer?