Really! Looks like you're wrong. The title of this thread claims that cutting down trees will save the world.

And here's the brainiac who said it.

Reagan was not partially right. Goober is spot on though

I'm all for cuttin' down a tree if it'll piss off a liberal. If it ends up saving the world, that's just icing on the cake...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

So mature of you.

And believe me, cutting down the trees isn't going to save the world.

Believe you?

Why in the world would I want to do something like that??

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Yea, it says nothing about cars. This marks the second thread where you've attempted to equate CO2 and pollution, Samantha. That Reagan attempted to do the same thing must really chap your hide.
Oh, Samantha. You wouldn't be insulting me, would you? I'm not sure if your naivete is product, or cause, of your hypocrisy.

Reagan was partially right in the same way I'd be partially right to claim I have 3 arms; the article that you quote shows it very clearly (see the conclusion). Reagan made a mistake; well, everybody does, and I'm not someone who blames people for that type of errors. But trying to prove he's right, now that's a pathetic example of how low partisanship can drag even intelligent people.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

"I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree. Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
- Ogden Nash

I'm amazed too.

Good one Nemo

In case you are in doubt, IIIX, I don't write for the Guardian.

I never said their report was correct, I simply offered it in the spirit of all the other quotes (cut and paste is easier than thought).

But trying to label me as a pathetic example of partisanship based on someone else's writing is, well, kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Wow Matt, are you seriously going to try to deny that you didn't post an article to make your case for this wacky thread about cutting down trees to save the earth? Come on! We are not stupid. You make comments and then try to claim you aren't of the opinion that your comments lead us to believe you are!! You've been doing this a lot lately.

After your article you quoted you wrote:

So what does that mean exactly? Isn't that sarcasm and mocking? Doesn't that imply that you agree with the article and that you think the Guardian is left wing but you are mocking those who would think it was a right wing stance, to be of a Reagan mindset, "it's only a tree"?

When you post a quote Matt, it's a given that this is your stance on the issue unless you state otherwise.

Perhaps in your mind, Sam, since you prefer to decide what people mean rather than reading what they say.

I guess by that standard, Nemo believes that trees cause more pollution that people? After all, he posted a quote......

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You be sure and let me know if that ever happens, Andrew.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Why is it wacky? Aren't you concerned about runaway global warming? Would you rather we all burn to death? Are you some paid lobbyist for the lumber industry?

Short memory eh Matt?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

BLAME CALIFORNIA!!!!! Theyre the Ones Forbid you cut down a tree!