Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134539)	4/1/2001 9:38:22 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Dear Nadine, >>>>You're right, we should be leading the world in environmental standards, not trailing it. We should certainly not be a rogue polluting state, as the Bush administration seems to prefer. Nadine that was spoken by a pure or putrid sucker up to mr bill and the big lie and say something truly stupid. The big lie is that the "You're right" falsely implies that the person in the post you were replying to said anything remotely like the stupidity you proffered. Now why is what you said so stupid. Well if you examine environmental standards around the would and then say the US should have as good or better, then the retardation of what you have just said come about in looking at the reality of what you said means. You see the most stringent environmental standards exist in countries like Russia that have standards than in some cases are orders of magnitude (that a factor of ten) more restrictive than in the US. You see dear Nadine, there are places in the world where no-one really knows what an environmental standard is and no-one really knows how to measure what an environmental standard requires and no-one really care if any environmental standard is met. The cost to these countries to have wonderful environmental standards is zero to the wealthy and keep all the folks who would be democrats happy. These democrats live a sucky life and die, but they are happy as they have wonderful environmental standards. So as and engineer I ask what is the real danger and what is the real cost and what makes sense as a real standard that will be enforced. tom watson tosiwmee

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134539)	4/1/2001 10:08:36 PM
From: RON BL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Nadine thanks for the reply. Look at the following and tell me how you can explain it. Further how can you find fault with Bush for agreeing with all of these Democrats. July 26, 1997 - the date when the US Senate voted against the proposed treaty 95-0. Not one Senator - not even Ted Kennedy - voted in favour. Also a question for you are you a vegetarian and if not why not ? If you are so concerned with the environment then you must become one. I have little tolerance for people talking in grave concern over the environment who are themselves gross polluters. Kind of like hearing some preacher who is regularly visiting hookers.