Boeing to cease 757 production

"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.

"Tom S." writes:

"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.

Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
the environmentalists. As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
positions, anyway!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

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



Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
the environmentalists.

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

Did you happen to catch that guy (can't think of his name) that used to be a
Director with Greenpeace that just wrote a book of what they've turned into
during the past ten years?

BTW...speaking of environut influence, two words - Al Gore

As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
positions, anyway!

No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

"Tom S." wrote:

No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

Yep. Talk to some of the people who bought retirement property in areas that
then got turned into National Parks and Forests. Who weren't even allowed to
testify to the decision committees while the Manhattan econazi groups from
2,000 miles away were given the spotlight.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

In article , "Tom S."
writes:

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
California are buring.
about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern Washington?

John

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tom S."

writes:

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in
front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
California are buring.
about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern
Washington?

This just in:

"But the Senate compromise is opposed by environmental groups as well as the
powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee. So wildfire-reduction
legislation remains stalled more than a year after President Bush called for
it."

Tue, Oct. 28, 2003

Fires might break deadlock over effort to thin forests
FEINSTEIN URGES SENATE TO PASS COMPROMISE, REDUCE RISKS
By Jim Puzzanghera
Mercury News Washington Bureau

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...al/7121359.htm