hi mlsoft... some agreements and not re
As for the previous rant, the two most environmentally protective presidents of the past century were both Republicans - Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.
i could not agree more, which makes your "freind" in the white house policies more blatanty harmful. I would not be surprised in 10 years or less if the curent Pres was looked at as more scandalous/secretive/harmful than Nixon in the overall. Just today i praised Nixon to a liberal tree hugging friend of mine, she agreed Nixon did a lot of good both in opening up relations with China, Russia, and was at ther forfront of positive environmental policies. As for Teddy Roosevelt, well as a tree hugger here and tree GROWER...he is a genuine hero. Ironic since he started the National Park system....which Geroge Bush cares nothing about, except for tapping/ruining for oil.
[i}Of course you are correct - why folks cannot see that there is no free lunch is beyond me. The only currently realistic answer to our energy needs going forward is nuclear (fusion, if it can be perfected) but the liberals and tree huggers abhor the thought of it, based on knee jerk reactions and politically correct thought rather than science.
While a i partly agree....its the "mindset" of "currently realistic" that i don't as i alluded to in previous posts...if we dont "push" alt energy development it will never be viable.
re politically correct thought rather than science.
don't get me going on that.....the right wing is shameless in ignoring science and going for knee jerk reactionary measures...therapeutic cloning is just one example.
Both sides of the question are equally guilty of short sightedness, to our detriment. agreed, both the tree huggers, ie nader and tree cutters (Bush and friends)
MH
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
