Urgent Ronald Reagan Legacy Alert!

Quote:
Are we going to take Franklin off the 20 now because HE was never ellected to office?

Hope you stay out of the counterfitin' business, son...
Click to expand...



No! No! America NEEDS more of our counterfeiters to follow his lead! :D


Besides, I want to trade him some of my Ben Franklins for some of his. :D
 
Re: "...declaring that trees cause pollution..."

Certain coniferous trees (Scotch pine in particular) in Boreal forest all over the globe will emit nitrogen oxides (smog precursors) when exposed to UV radiation. This is a scientifically proven fact.

While the forests' contributions are rather insignificant on a local scale, globally, they rival that of industrial and traffic sources.

Everybody jumped all over Reagan when he said that, probably taking what he said out of context to boot. Turned out that he was right. Not that that stops people from hammering home the catchy phrase...Much like your "Tax cuts for the rich" comment.
 
While the forests' contributions are rather insignificant on a local scale, globally, they rival that of industrial and traffic sources.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to argue that the net effect of forested areas across the globe is to increase air pollution, you really are out there. The definition of pollution is a substance (usually toxic) that is out of its natural place, not merely that it is toxic. Otherwise, all the gases from volcanoes would be "pollution", which they are not.

He was trying to defend pollution by arguing that some of those elements exist in the air naturally, so we shouldn't worry about adding as much, and more, and different types. That's like saying 'well, malaria exists in the jungle, who cares if we spread some typhoid and yellow fever, plus a little more malaria'.
 
Yep...Ol' Ronnie tinkled in a lot of folks' Cherios with his victories.

If you're a "share the wealth" kind of guy, I can see where you might be sick of all the hoohah.
Click to expand...
So if you're not a fan of Reagan, you must be a fan of Marx? Nice logic. :barf:

Gotta love some of those "victories," too. Like selling missiles to the Iranians who turned around and used them on our own ships in the gulf.

PT Barnum was right.

- 0 -
 
Generalize all you like, I personally feel the Patco decision was wrong. As I do Iran-Contra, voodoo economics, trickle-down theories, a federal deficit that quadrupled, declaring ketchup a vegetable, tax-cuts that were slanted to help the wealthiest, declaring that trees cause pollution, beginning the deep dark slide into the draconian gun restrictions in California, and so on.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. Someone has been getting all his news from the local union stewards and the mainstream media.

;)


Move along, folks, nothing to debate here. No thinking going on.
 
If you are trying to argue that the net effect of forested areas across the globe is to increase air pollution, you really are out there. The definition of pollution is a substance (usually toxic) that is out of its natural place, not merely that it is toxic. Otherwise, all the gases from volcanoes would be "pollution", which they are not.

He was trying to defend pollution by arguing that some of those elements exist in the air naturally, so we shouldn't worry about adding as much, and more, and different types. That's like saying 'well, malaria exists in the jungle, who cares if we spread some typhoid and yellow fever, plus a little more malaria'.
Click to expand...

My nose can't really tell the difference between sulphur dioxide from a coal fired power plant and sulphur dioxide from a volcano. It has the same problem with nitrous dioxide from trees and nitrous dioxide from "pollution".


Hey! I've got an idea! Wierd, but maybe there's something to it. Maybe Ronnie was trying to say that getting all hot and bothered about raising the NO2 level a fraction of a percent above "natural" levels really didn't make much sense!

Like when the global warming baloney comes around, maybe it would make sense to point out that one decent volcano produces more CO2 than man has in his entire history, so maybe it's just not reasonable to think that we are making the planet warmer by burning fossil fuels.


Nah, couldn't be that. Too reasonable.


My favorite one of these is the formic acid and Amazon jungle ant thing.
 
I think everything should be named after Reagan.

Washington, District of Columbia? Washington, District of Reagan

New York? New Reagan

Pennsylvania? RonaldsylvReagan

California? Calireagan

The Presidency? The Reagancy

The White House? The Reagan House

Gulf of Mexico? Gulf of Reagan

Mount Hood? Mount Reagan

The Liberty Bell? The Liberty Reagan

The Washington Monument? Nah, even that's going too far.

Holy smoking Jesus, folks. I'm a HUGE Reaganite Republican, and even I'm getting really tired of the "let's rename the world."

There's a move on to rename the Pentagon to the Ronald Reagan National Defense Building.

Great, except that there's already a huge federal building named after him, plus the airport. Not to mention the aircraft carrier.

If people are slapped in the face by the name Ronald Reagan every time they turn around, I'm afraid it will cause dilution and diminishment of his legacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top