"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a
year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account
for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your
economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.

If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
$300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.

(Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
Alternatives"???)

You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
"laboratory-grade water in every river".

Actually, it's called "hyperbole" and 'reductio absurdum', but them you've
already drawn you conclusion

Whereas in the real world
*nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.

Really? You should take a look into who are the most influential "spokesmen"
from the environnuts.

at the very start.