🚀 go-pugleaf

PeopleEater wrote:

> Walt Horning <whorning@pipeline.com> wrote in message news:<4g4slt47l6m44lj8it6js1io94ao3etfn3@4ax.com>...
> > Environmentalists are mentally ill:
> >
> >  - they get a law passed to save gas by forcing car-makers to make
> >    smaller, less safe cars causing more highway deaths
> >
> >       Burning less oil is more important than human lives?
>
> We've gone to war over oil. So yes, I guess it is.
>
> >
> >  - they get a law passed to save endangered fish along some rivers and
> >    the farmers cannot get water and are the ones now "endangered"
> >
> >       Fish are more important than humans?
>
> Endangered? How do you make that connection? Sure, farmers may get
> stiffed, but I really doubt their jobs are more important than an
> entire species. BTW, farmers' jobs have been endangered for the past
> 50 or so years, ever since America started went from agriculture to
> industry to a service based economy.

US farmers produce more food than any other farmer in the world. (And
we do it with less farmers per acre.)


> Fortunately for them, they get
> massive government subsidies so they DON'T die out completely. If
> anything, the biggest problem facing small farmers is corporatization.
>
> >
> >       Its "OK" for the farmers to die instead?
>
> Yeah, because they'll all die from starvation or dehydration.

Then the rest of the people of the world will die also.

>
>
> >
> >  - they get a laws passed to make it twice as expensive to produce
> >    electricity in California and then cannot figure out how come they
> >    cannot get any power or have to pay too much
> >
> >       Too many regulations are more important than humans?
>
> The environmentalists did this? I thought it was the energy companies
> in conjunction with the state of California.
>
> >
> >  - they do not want oil drilling in certain areas but ignore the fact
> >    that if there is a shortage of heating oil, little babies could
> >    freeze to death
> >
> >       Are a few Caribou are more important that babies?
>
> There is no shortage of oil. And even if there was, drilling the
> Alaskan wildlife preserve would be absolutely useless since its got
> about 6 months worth of oil anyways. Oil is more expensive now than it
> was last year, but oh well. No need to destroy a wildlife preserve
> because you were dumb enough to buy a gas-guzzling SUV.
>
> >
> >  - they interfere with military target practice on deserted islands
> >    and ignore the need for self-defense or a military force for
> >    problems like Iraq
> >
> >       Are a few birds more important than national security?
>
> Self-defence? Hardly. I believe self-defence is defined as the act of
> preventing an attacker from harming you. Last I recall, WE declared
> war on Iraq.
>
> >
> >  - they have always protested nuclear weapons, but only with weapons
> >    of mass destruction is there a defense against more "Hitlers" in
> >    this world
> >
> >       Are a few more holocausts what these mentally ill people want?
>
> We never used nuclear weapons against Hitler. If anything beat Hitler,
> it was his own moronic invasion of the USSR.
>
> >
> >       "The bomb" saved hundreds of thousands of US soldiers' lives
> >       when Japan surrendered. (Granted, they could have bombed
> >       military targets or some less populated area for an effective
> >       demonstration to get them to surrender.)
>
> Yeah, I think it would have been better to actually bomb a military
> target.

We did.

> Even the Japanese didn't attack a city. BTW, the Japanese were
> willing to surrender on a condition that they keep their emperor.

They wanted him to "rule Japan" we made sure he didn't.

> As
> you should know, the US doesn't do conditional surrenders, so we
> bombed them instead to show we meant business. But guess what! They
> still kept their emperor!

And he doesn't rule anything.....

>
>
> >
> >  - they moan and groan about CO2 emission, when in fact more CO2 means
> >    more green plants to counter the effect of CO2 and bring the amount
> >    of CO2 back in "balance".
> >
> >       Are the deaths of millions of starving people worth it when
> >       world economies fail due to excessive regulation?
>
> This is a rather startling leap of logic here. More planting of plants
> will mean  more plants. Excessive CO2 emissions will only make it
> harder for us to breath and go outside when its sunny. BTW, the
> ecosystem was doing fine long before humans started pumping all this
> co2 into the atmosphere.

There is no excess CO2

> The CO2 we exhale has always been, and should
> continue to be, enough for every little plant in the world.
>
> >
> > These people may mean well, but I can only conclude they are mentally
> > ill when they cannot see the harm they are doing. Some regulation is
> > needed, that is for sure, but these people are no longer sensible, but
> > fanatics.
>
> Are you talking about yourself?