http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

On 8/26/2011 9:48 AM, JustWait wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html


This **** is getting old.

Switch to jungle drums and they won't bother you.

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will? Have you seen how the rain forests are decimated and will never
return to what they were? What about poisons in your drinking water, are
you okay with that?

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ Man wrote:

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?


Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

In article ,
says...

On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?


Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

On Aug 26, 1:11*pm, iBoatMore wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 8/26/11 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:09:06 -0400, X ~ *wrote:

In ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will?

This is rhetorical question, right?

Not in the Perry campaign, which would word it:

Shouldn't we be able to rape the environment and pollute at will?

Sure, Kevin.

What carbon footprint did the agents raiding Gibson produce? Was the
actual environmental effect considerably worse than anything Gibson
may have done? The answer is obviously "Yes".

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will? Have you seen how the rain forests are decimated and will never
return to what they were? What about poisons in your drinking water, are
you okay with that?

Yes.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:54:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will? Have you seen how the rain forests are decimated and will never
return to what they were? What about poisons in your drinking water, are
you okay with that?

Yes.

No surprise from the likes of you...

"X ~ Man" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...471223268.html

This **** is getting old.

Do you think we should be able to rape the environment and pollute at
will? Have you seen how the rain forests are decimated and will never
return to what they were? What about poisons in your drinking water, are
you okay with that?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Harry, (assuming your *are* Harry)

The USA signed the International CITES agreement in 1973 that is designed to
protect overharvested and therefore
endangered species ... most wood. Since then only the protected wood that
was harvested before 1969 or thereabouts
can be used. It's not just guitars. It's furniture, picture frames...
etc.

In 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service unilaterally decided to expand
the interpretation and enforcement to cover
virtually anything that was once alive. This is includes abalone inlays in
guitars, more wood species (as they
deem fit) and, of course, anything else that was once alive. It's a little
bit carried away because much that they are
"protecting" isn't any where near being endangered.

The amount of material used in guitars is minor compared to furniture and
other products. Problem with guitars
is that if you happen to travel out of the country with your beautiful and
favorite Martin D-35 that happens to have
some abalone in it's rosette or headstock inlay and then try to return ...
it may be confiscated and destroyed.

Protecting endangered species is one thing, but those with the badges are
getting a little carried away.

Eisboch