Glad I could provide you enjoyment. Try not to get so worked up on stuff on
usenet.

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:g7Asb.397$cX1.160@fed1read02...
> Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
> yourself. Have a nice daze
>
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Correct.
> : But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> : > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
> : >
> :
>
>

 

Glad I could provide you enjoyment. Try not to get so worked up on stuff on
usenet.

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:g7Asb.397$cX1.160@fed1read02...
> Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
> yourself. Have a nice daze
>
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Correct.
> : But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> : > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
> : >
> :
>
>

 

Glad I could provide you enjoyment. Try not to get so worked up on stuff on
usenet.

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:g7Asb.397$cX1.160@fed1read02...
> Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
> yourself. Have a nice daze
>
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Correct.
> : But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> : > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
> : >
> :
>
>

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Laksb.148551$ZH4.76296@twister.socal.rr.com> ...
> "st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
<snip>
> Here we go again, blame the US.

I'm not blaming the US. I am, however, pointing out that the US needs
to recognise that some of it's policies in the past have helped bring
us to the current situation.

> It's easy to lean back and criticize the
> US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
> paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
> against despotism.

Paid the high price? Make the world safe for democratic societies?
Don't make me laugh. Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
is history.

The US *has* done some great things. As you'll be happy to point out,
they were the driving force behind ridding us of both **** and Soviet
menaces. That's why I called the policies shortsighted, however. In
their zeal to win the cold war, they didn't think about the long term
effects of placing puppet dictators in control of oil rich nations, at
the cost of freedom for the locals. Right now, we're seeing the
results of those policies. You need to look at the big picture if you
hope to see real change in the future.

If the US really was the big teddy bear uncle of freedom that you'd
like to see it as, then why do so many people in the Arab war have an
axe to grind? No smoke, as they say...


>
> We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
> rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
> governed just "happens".

Not if the CIA have anything to say about it. Not if the freely
elected government leans more to the left than the US would like. And
especially not if there's a whole lot of oil in the ground there.

<snip>
> Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
> demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
> rule over others.

Which country is the most powerful in the world economy? Which
country - understandably - wishes to protect its interests? US
politicians answer to the US people. Don't make the mistake of
believing the hype that the US is interested in looking after freedom
and democracy beyond its own shores, however. Historically, the US
has supported it where helpfull for it's own gain, and (sadly) crushed
it where not.
>
> > > and proliferation of WMD.
> >
> > Where?
> >
>
> Now there's a famous last word.

6 months wasn't fast enough for the UN. All of a sudden it's okay for
the US inspectors - who now don't have any opposition from the Iraqi
government holding them up - to take longer?
>
>
> > > If the world didn't need middle
> > > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
> on
> > > terror.
> >
> > They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> > biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
>
> I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
>
> I'll try.
>
> 1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
> point is not to wait around until they do.

Iraq *had* used WMD *within their own country*, some years back.
Nevertheless, this is a spurious argument. Why shouldn't Pakistan
invade India using the same argument? Why shouldn't China attack the
US for the same reason?

> 2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.

It takes 2 sides to have a war. The "war on terror" is the easiest
moniker to put to all this mess. Call it what you will.

> 3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
> weren't the problem.

They weren't? THEY'RE the weapons that were used to take control of
the flights, weren't they? What are you going to do, invade every
country that builds Boeings? Or has the capability to build Boeings?
Or has plans to develop the capability to build Boeings?
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
>
> Up yours.

Please, don't get me wrong. There is much that the US has to offer,
and there is much that I love about the USA. However, US foreign
policy has been shortsighted in the past, and unfortunately, I don't
see any signs of that changing now. It's alright for you guys,
because the US government does it for you guys. But it ain't doing it
for me, and it certainly ain't caring for the people of Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, or even, really, Australia.

Cheers,
Steve

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Laksb.148551$ZH4.76296@twister.socal.rr.com> ...
> "st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
<snip>
> Here we go again, blame the US.

I'm not blaming the US. I am, however, pointing out that the US needs
to recognise that some of it's policies in the past have helped bring
us to the current situation.

> It's easy to lean back and criticize the
> US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
> paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
> against despotism.

Paid the high price? Make the world safe for democratic societies?
Don't make me laugh. Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
is history.

The US *has* done some great things. As you'll be happy to point out,
they were the driving force behind ridding us of both **** and Soviet
menaces. That's why I called the policies shortsighted, however. In
their zeal to win the cold war, they didn't think about the long term
effects of placing puppet dictators in control of oil rich nations, at
the cost of freedom for the locals. Right now, we're seeing the
results of those policies. You need to look at the big picture if you
hope to see real change in the future.

If the US really was the big teddy bear uncle of freedom that you'd
like to see it as, then why do so many people in the Arab war have an
axe to grind? No smoke, as they say...


>
> We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
> rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
> governed just "happens".

Not if the CIA have anything to say about it. Not if the freely
elected government leans more to the left than the US would like. And
especially not if there's a whole lot of oil in the ground there.

<snip>
> Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
> demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
> rule over others.

Which country is the most powerful in the world economy? Which
country - understandably - wishes to protect its interests? US
politicians answer to the US people. Don't make the mistake of
believing the hype that the US is interested in looking after freedom
and democracy beyond its own shores, however. Historically, the US
has supported it where helpfull for it's own gain, and (sadly) crushed
it where not.
>
> > > and proliferation of WMD.
> >
> > Where?
> >
>
> Now there's a famous last word.

6 months wasn't fast enough for the UN. All of a sudden it's okay for
the US inspectors - who now don't have any opposition from the Iraqi
government holding them up - to take longer?
>
>
> > > If the world didn't need middle
> > > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
> on
> > > terror.
> >
> > They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> > biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
>
> I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
>
> I'll try.
>
> 1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
> point is not to wait around until they do.

Iraq *had* used WMD *within their own country*, some years back.
Nevertheless, this is a spurious argument. Why shouldn't Pakistan
invade India using the same argument? Why shouldn't China attack the
US for the same reason?

> 2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.

It takes 2 sides to have a war. The "war on terror" is the easiest
moniker to put to all this mess. Call it what you will.

> 3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
> weren't the problem.

They weren't? THEY'RE the weapons that were used to take control of
the flights, weren't they? What are you going to do, invade every
country that builds Boeings? Or has the capability to build Boeings?
Or has plans to develop the capability to build Boeings?
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
>
> Up yours.

Please, don't get me wrong. There is much that the US has to offer,
and there is much that I love about the USA. However, US foreign
policy has been shortsighted in the past, and unfortunately, I don't
see any signs of that changing now. It's alright for you guys,
because the US government does it for you guys. But it ain't doing it
for me, and it certainly ain't caring for the people of Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, or even, really, Australia.

Cheers,
Steve

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Laksb.148551$ZH4.76296@twister.socal.rr.com> ...
> "st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
<snip>
> Here we go again, blame the US.

I'm not blaming the US. I am, however, pointing out that the US needs
to recognise that some of it's policies in the past have helped bring
us to the current situation.

> It's easy to lean back and criticize the
> US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
> paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
> against despotism.

Paid the high price? Make the world safe for democratic societies?
Don't make me laugh. Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
is history.

The US *has* done some great things. As you'll be happy to point out,
they were the driving force behind ridding us of both **** and Soviet
menaces. That's why I called the policies shortsighted, however. In
their zeal to win the cold war, they didn't think about the long term
effects of placing puppet dictators in control of oil rich nations, at
the cost of freedom for the locals. Right now, we're seeing the
results of those policies. You need to look at the big picture if you
hope to see real change in the future.

If the US really was the big teddy bear uncle of freedom that you'd
like to see it as, then why do so many people in the Arab war have an
axe to grind? No smoke, as they say...


>
> We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
> rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
> governed just "happens".

Not if the CIA have anything to say about it. Not if the freely
elected government leans more to the left than the US would like. And
especially not if there's a whole lot of oil in the ground there.

<snip>
> Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
> demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
> rule over others.

Which country is the most powerful in the world economy? Which
country - understandably - wishes to protect its interests? US
politicians answer to the US people. Don't make the mistake of
believing the hype that the US is interested in looking after freedom
and democracy beyond its own shores, however. Historically, the US
has supported it where helpfull for it's own gain, and (sadly) crushed
it where not.
>
> > > and proliferation of WMD.
> >
> > Where?
> >
>
> Now there's a famous last word.

6 months wasn't fast enough for the UN. All of a sudden it's okay for
the US inspectors - who now don't have any opposition from the Iraqi
government holding them up - to take longer?
>
>
> > > If the world didn't need middle
> > > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
> on
> > > terror.
> >
> > They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> > biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
>
> I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
>
> I'll try.
>
> 1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
> point is not to wait around until they do.

Iraq *had* used WMD *within their own country*, some years back.
Nevertheless, this is a spurious argument. Why shouldn't Pakistan
invade India using the same argument? Why shouldn't China attack the
US for the same reason?

> 2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.

It takes 2 sides to have a war. The "war on terror" is the easiest
moniker to put to all this mess. Call it what you will.

> 3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
> weren't the problem.

They weren't? THEY'RE the weapons that were used to take control of
the flights, weren't they? What are you going to do, invade every
country that builds Boeings? Or has the capability to build Boeings?
Or has plans to develop the capability to build Boeings?
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
>
> Up yours.

Please, don't get me wrong. There is much that the US has to offer,
and there is much that I love about the USA. However, US foreign
policy has been shortsighted in the past, and unfortunately, I don't
see any signs of that changing now. It's alright for you guys,
because the US government does it for you guys. But it ain't doing it
for me, and it certainly ain't caring for the people of Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, or even, really, Australia.

Cheers,
Steve

 

In article <bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy and
>incompetant.

Yeah, those lazy firemen and policemen that died rescuing others in the WTC.
Those incompetent servicemen fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>
>"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
>news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
>> If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
>> that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
>>
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
>> : "state" mess...
>> :
>> : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
>> : >
>> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
>> : >
>> : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does
>say
>> : > population by "state".
>> : >
>> : > >
>> : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
>> : > > >
>> : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
>> income
>> : > tax
>> : > > > but
>> : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept
>> your
>> : > word
>> : > > > on
>> : > > > > > it./
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
>> : > > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
>> included
>> : DC
>> : > in
>> : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
>> : > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : >
>> : >
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>

 

In article <bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy and
>incompetant.

Yeah, those lazy firemen and policemen that died rescuing others in the WTC.
Those incompetent servicemen fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>
>"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
>news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
>> If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
>> that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
>>
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
>> : "state" mess...
>> :
>> : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
>> : >
>> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
>> : >
>> : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does
>say
>> : > population by "state".
>> : >
>> : > >
>> : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
>> : > > >
>> : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
>> income
>> : > tax
>> : > > > but
>> : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept
>> your
>> : > word
>> : > > > on
>> : > > > > > it./
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
>> : > > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
>> included
>> : DC
>> : > in
>> : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
>> : > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : >
>> : >
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>

 

In article <bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy and
>incompetant.

Yeah, those lazy firemen and policemen that died rescuing others in the WTC.
Those incompetent servicemen fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>
>"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
>news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
>> If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
>> that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
>>
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
>> : "state" mess...
>> :
>> : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
>> : >
>> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
>> : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
>> : >
>> : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does
>say
>> : > population by "state".
>> : >
>> : > >
>> : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
>> : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
>> : > > >
>> : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
>> income
>> : > tax
>> : > > > but
>> : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept
>> your
>> : > word
>> : > > > on
>> : > > > > > it./
>> : > > > >
>> : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
>> : > > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
>> included
>> : DC
>> : > in
>> : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
>> : > > >
>> : > > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : >
>> : >
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:
>
>> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
>> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
>> protections for sale in the USA?
>
>It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
>third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
>global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
>sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
>exist.
>
>If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
>and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
>Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
>amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
>sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
>thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
>Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
>companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
>resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
>sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
>
>This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
>that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
>up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
>kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
>and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
>independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
>for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
>requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
>because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
>
>Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
>written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
>and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
>defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
>had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
>of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
>Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
>mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
>laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
>consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
>with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
>eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
>
>Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
>tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
>activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
>to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
>bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
>of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
>emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
>by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
>enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
>perspective.
>
>We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
>no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
>
>DS
>

***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
Don't blame pollution on America!
Wait until 3 years, you will see the ***** will overtake America as the
world #1 polluting nation.
Basically there is no environmental movement in China . Imagine you hold a
sign of no more pollution
in Beijing street, you will be arrest and jail right away. ***** commie can
kill you right away if you are protesting
against state policy. This is why America we still hold our freedom and
freedom to speak out. Remember that's I tell
people to never support Jap, ***** or any other foreigner product. They are
destorying our nation!