# Bush Adminstration turning USA into a sewer (reply to ScreamingEagle)



## wade (Oct 28, 2004)

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> wade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay... the following article does a pretty complete job:



> Environmental Terrorism
> 
> Crimes Against Nature
> 
> ...


----------



## wade (Oct 28, 2004)

> Undermining the Scientists
> 
> Today (2004), with the presidency and both houses of Congress under the anti-environmentalists control, they are set to eviscerate the despised laws.  White House strategy is to promote its unpopular policies by lying about its agenda, cheating on the science and stealing the language and rhetoric of the environmental movement.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## wade (Oct 28, 2004)

> Inside the Cheney Task Force
> 
> There is no; better example of the corporate cronyism now hijacking American democracy than the White Houses cozy relationship with the energy industry.  Its hard to find anyone on Bushs staff who does not have extensive corporate connections, but fossil-fuel executives rule the roost.  The energy industry contributed more than $48.3 million to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle, with $3 million to Bush.  Now the investment has matured.  Both Bush and Cheney came out of the oil patch.  Thirty-one of the Bush transition teams forty-eight members had energy-industry ties.  Bushs cabinet and White House staff is an energy-industry dream teamfour cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials and more than twenty high-level appointees are alumni of the industry and its allies.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## wade (Oct 28, 2004)

> Looting the Commons
> 
> Although congress will have its final vote on the plan in November, the White House has already devised ways to implement most of its worst provisions without congressional interference.  In October 2001, the administration removed the Interior Departments power to veto mining permits, even if the mining would cause substantial and irreparable harm to the environment. That December, Bush and congressional Republicans passed an economic-stimulus package that proposed $2.4 billion worth of tax breaks, credits and loopholes for Chevron, Texaco, Enron and General Electric.  The following February, the White House announced it would abandon regulations for three major pollutantsmercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
> 
> ...



Substantiated in full.  Bush is trying to turn the USA and the planet into a big sewer to ernich his industry profiteers.

Wade.


----------



## dmp (Oct 28, 2004)

I believe that article is pure bullshit.


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

Pick any part of it and research it and you will find that it is pure truth.


----------



## theim (Oct 29, 2004)

Even if it is true, which I doubt, I just have to be frank and say the environment is rather low on the List of Important Things these days.


----------



## theim (Oct 29, 2004)

Oh what the heck.

You got us. Got us good. You figured out how we want to Privatize all Social Security, make your grandmother eat cat food, cut taxes only for rich people who promise to export people's jobs to India, starve the homeless people to decrease the surplus population, fill in every wetland in the US, turn the state of Nebraska into a toxic landfill, Make sure the air is at least 80% carbon monoxide in the next 4 years, and have our anual party where us rich people all get together, go out downtown, and laugh at poor people. Before strangling their kittens and puppies in front of their horrified children. Whom we will force to work in sweatshops at age 7.

Did I miss anything?
Capitalism. Muwahahahahaha!

You cried the day the USSR collapsed didn't you?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 29, 2004)

Environmentalism is anti human.

I like the environment, I like nature,  but if we need to destroy the rainforest to plant food for people to eat I'm all for it. I'm pro human.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 29, 2004)

Oh  and another thing.  All those "sustainable development" wonks care little of development, and are mostly interested in instituting socialism to slow or stop the growth of humanity.


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

theim said:
			
		

> Oh what the heck.
> 
> You got us. Got us good. You figured out how we want to Privatize all Social Security, make your grandmother eat cat food, cut taxes only for rich people who promise to export people's jobs to India, starve the homeless people to decrease the surplus population, fill in every wetland in the US, turn the state of Nebraska into a toxic landfill, Make sure the air is at least 80% carbon monoxide in the next 4 years, and have our anual party where us rich people all get together, go out downtown, and laugh at poor people. Before strangling their kittens and puppies in front of their horrified children. Whom we will force to work in sweatshops at age 7.
> 
> ...



The Soviets were even worse polluters than the USA.

Have you even read the report posted above, or do you just have an opinion based upon what Bush tells you and don't bother to even consider that it might be false?

Just look at the mercury pollution situation:



> Published on Friday, December 5, 2003 by Reuters
> Bush's Mercury Cut Delay Could Endanger Newborns -Group
> by Julie Rovner
> 
> ...



And that one in twelve figure is very conservative.  More credible estimates (ie: not from the Bush trashed EPA) are that one in six women of child bearing age in the USA have so much mercury in the lining of their womb that their children will be born with a host of neurological and other disorders, and will suffer a 7-10 point IQ loss!

Under the rules established by the Clinton EPA, this pollution was to be virtually eliminated already - *now Bush has pushed it back to 2018*!

You claim to be a capitalist.  In true capitalism, the producer of a good or service bears all costs related to that product.  But under this Administration, pollution costs are born by the public and no attempt to internalize them to the producer is sought.  This is capitalism at its worst.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 29, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> In true capitalism, the producer of a good or service bears all costs related to that product.


There are costs of production and there are costs of consumption.  Sticking the producer with consumption costs is socialism.  I love this whole externalized/internalized cost discussion.  libs read an article about it and think they have something new and great.  But it's just new verbiage on the same old, tired arguments.


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Environmentalism is anti human.
> 
> I like the environment, I like nature,  but if we need to destroy the rainforest to plant food for people to eat I'm all for it. I'm pro human.



I'll reply to this one RWA, though I usually ignore you.

Rainforests once covered 14% of the Earths land mass, today they cover less than 6%.

More than 20% of the Earths oxygen is produced by the Amazon rainforest.  All rainforests combine probably produce something over 1/3rd of the Earths free oxygen supply.  How do you think the Earth is going to respond to a 1/3rd decrease in free oxygen production?

Every day, approximate 137 species of plants, insects, and animals are extinguished by the deforestation of the rainforests.  That's 50,000 species a year.  Currently, about 25% of all pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest sources, yet only 1% of these sources have been tested.  The loss to humanity for destroying these life forms is staggering - the cure for cancer is probably in the rain forest right now, but it will probably be wiped out within the next 10 years.

And why?  Food?  No.  Land for people?  No again.  The reason is greed and greed alone.  The rainforests are being destroyed so that people can have cheap wood.

I'm pro-human too.  And as I understand it, *humans have to breath*.  Something you seem to have overlooked in your belief that cheap wood is worth the destruction of the rainforest.


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> There are costs of production and there are costs of consumption.  Sticking the producer with consumption costs is socialism.  I love this whole externalized/internalized cost discussion.  libs read an article about it and think they have something new and great.  But it's just new verbiage on the same old, tired arguments.



That is totally false.  The producer is always supposed to be "stuck with" all costs of production.  He is then supposed to pass these costs on to the consumer.  That's not socialism, that's basic, fundimental capitalism.

To you, anything you don't agree with must be inspired by socialism or communism.  But you are dead wrong on this one RWA.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 29, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> That is totally false.  The producer is always supposed to be "stuck with" all costs of production.  He is then supposed to pass these costs on to the consumer.  That's not socialism, that's basic, fundimental capitalism.
> 
> To you, anything you don't agree with must be inspired by socialism or communism.  But you are dead wrong on this one RWA.



I thought you had me on ignore.  Just another of your lies I guess.

Yes, the producer is stuck with production costs.  Environnmental costs are not costs of production,  they are costs of consumption, meaning they only accrue when the product is consumed.  These could just as reasonably assigned to the consumer.  Arbitrarily sticking them to the producer is an extension of the leftist anticorporate mindset.

You're wrong, pudstain.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 29, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I'll reply to this one RWA, though I usually ignore you.
> 
> Rainforests once covered 14% of the Earths land mass, today they cover less than 6%.
> 
> ...




The only rainforest in the U.S. is in Hawaii, and it isn't shrinking.  We've done our part and we keep telling other countries to do theirs, but they don't listen.  What are we supposed to do?  Invade their country?  Oh, I'm sure the U.S. taxpayers would just LOVE that, especially the guys fighting the war, almost none of which would be tree huggers.


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I thought you had me on ignore.  Just another of your lies I guess.
> 
> Yes, the producer is stuck with production costs.  Environnmental costs are not costs of production,  they are costs of consumption, meaning they only accrue when the product is consumed.  These could just as reasonably assigned to the consumer.  Arbitrarily sticking them to the producer is an extension of the leftist anticorporate mindset.
> 
> You're wrong, pudstain.



I unblocked you to see your responses to this thread.  I guess I'll have to block you again after a short while, as you cannot help but throw in insults every time you post.

Evironmental costs of production are a cost of consumption?  What source are you getting this from?  It's totally absurd RWA.  Nowhere in established economic theory will you see such a concept.

Most industrial pollution and environmental impacts are caused when the goods are produced.  This is certainly the case with the noxious mercury laden gasses being spewed out of coal burning power plants.  And it's certainly the case for the huge factory hawg farms that Bush has given permission to kill the lakes and rivers of this country.  And it's true of the mining industry.

The only "consumer costs" are pollution caused by fuels they burn and by things they dispose of.  While these are not insignificant, they are only a small fraction of the pollution and evironmental impacts upon this country.  And, for the most part, the consumers are comparatively efficient about such wast products where industry is not.

Don't you think 2018 is too long to wait to end the mercury poisoning of our people?  Will it take a 50% birth defect rate to convince you?


----------



## wade (Oct 29, 2004)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> The only rainforest in the U.S. is in Hawaii, and it isn't shrinking.  We've done our part and we keep telling other countries to do theirs, but they don't listen.  What are we supposed to do?  Invade their country?  Oh, I'm sure the U.S. taxpayers would just LOVE that, especially the guys fighting the war, almost none of which would be tree huggers.



The rainforests are a diversion in this thread, as they are not discussed in the material presented above.  But the USA is by far the biggest consumer of rainforest wood and products, and we have encouraged rather than discouraged the wreckless distruction of the rainforests.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 29, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I unblocked you to see your responses to this thread.  I guess I'll have to block you again after a short while, as you cannot help but throw in insults every time you post.
> 
> Evironmental costs of production are a cost of consumption?  What source are you getting this from?  It's totally absurd RWA.  Nowhere in established economic theory will you see such a concept.


Pollution from fuel is created when  the product is USED,  or CONSUMED, hence the cost is only accrued when consumption occurs, hence consumers, not producers, could just as easily be assigned responsibility.  It's like if you get fined for littering, you can't blame mcdonalds for selling you the food that you litter was wrapped around.


> Most industrial pollution and environmental impacts are caused when the goods are produced.  This is certainly the case with the noxious mercury laden gasses being spewed out of coal burning power plants.  And it's certainly the case for the huge factory hawg farms that Bush has given permission to kill the lakes and rivers of this country.  And it's true of the mining industry.


It's true of some, not true of others.


> The only "consumer costs" are pollution caused by fuels they burn and by things they dispose of.  While these are not insignificant, they are only a small fraction of the pollution and evironmental impacts upon this country.  And, for the most part, the consumers are comparatively efficient about such wast products where industry is not.
> 
> Don't you think 2018 is too long to wait to end the mercury poisoning of our people?  Will it take a 50% birth defect rate to convince you?



So you agree that consumption costs are a valid construct.  Thanks.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 29, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Oh  and another thing.  All those "sustainable development" wonks care little of development, and are mostly interested in instituting socialism to slow or stop the growth of humanity.




Eeeewww hate it when you do that! I was going to say that! Standardization and decentralization are good things when applied to the corrupt governments in third world and "newly" developing nations.


----------



## White knight (Oct 29, 2004)

I did not even read the original post but I know what they are saying. This Administration has a long history of unprecedented behavior from the controversial time they entered the White House. 

You can start to recognize a pattern of behavior, most notably in the public image area. When they are confronted with something no matter what scandal it is, Abu Grab, IAED explosives, They are fast to come up with a damage control story, and they accept no responsibility or admit doing anything wrong. It always deny, deny deny, attack, attack, attack, 
When they are called in on something, its back pedal, find a scapegoat to blame, or we were too busy to monitor every single minor detail.
Or attack the messenger, the leaked CIA agents name, anyone who has stepped out of ranks and challenged them gets attacked. No one will even try and stand up to them anymore.
I know who is behind it all,

Most people are drunk in love with him; they wont even admit that he made any mistakes in his life or that he has any character flaws. No one can be that perfect.
I know the masses are ignorant and easily swayed by emotions and images. If thats what they want, thats what they will get and the will suffer the consciences for it.   
I will vote for the guy so I can help them to suffer for not challenging some of these controversies.
G.W. has the most powerful man in politics on his side right now, and they dont call him that for nothing.
You will see who wins.


----------



## eric (Oct 29, 2004)

> This Administration has a long history of unprecedented behavior from the controversial time they entered the White House.
> 
> You can start to recognize a pattern of behavior, most notably in the public image area. When they are confronted with something no matter what scandal it is, Abu Grab, IAED explosives, They are fast to come up with a damage control story, and they accept no responsibility or admit doing anything wrong. It always deny, deny deny, attack, attack, attack,
> When they are called in on something, its back pedal, find a scapegoat to blame, or we were too busy to monitor every single minor detail.
> Or attack the messenger, the leaked CIA agents name, anyone who has stepped out of ranks and challenged them gets attacked.



You find this unprecedented behavior ? How old are you ?

It seems to me that EVERY administration I have ever seen has sinned in this manner. It is politics, the very nature of the beast, to believe otherwise is just plain naive. Not to mention what you state is little more than your opinion. I know in your mind anyone who does not agree with you is drunk in love with Bush, but there is a danger when one thinks himself always right at the exclusion of all other opinion.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Eeeewww hate it when you do that! I was going to say that! Standardization and decentralization are good things when applied to the corrupt governments in third world and "newly" developing nations.



And what does that have to do with envrionmental policy?


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

White knight said:
			
		

> I did not even read the original post but I know what they are saying.



For God sakes, read the post.  It's far more than what you think you know.

Already, in his first 4 years in office, Bush has done irrepairable harm to the environment in the name of corprate greed.  Across the board he has given industry permission to defile the environment without consequence.  Give him another 4 years and he will virtually destroy it.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

eric said:
			
		

> You find this unprecedented behavior ? How old are you ?
> 
> It seems to me that EVERY administration I have ever seen has sinned in this manner. It is politics, the very nature of the beast, to believe otherwise is just plain naive. Not to mention what you state is little more than your opinion. I know in your mind anyone who does not agree with you is drunk in love with Bush, *but there is a danger when one thinks himself always right at the exclusion of all other opinion*.



Which describes Bush to a tee.  I didn't realize you weren't voting for Bush.


----------



## eric (Oct 30, 2004)

Awe, very cute Wade. Did you come up with that all by yourself ?

Contact my HR dept., I might even have a job for you, with you sharp witt.

As far as not voting for Bush, you must be joking me !!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

It's funny, when wade first came here, he was pretending like he was really militarily oriented and really cared about our nation. When that was revealed as a bunch of crap, and we knew that his intention was to be discouraging of expenses on advanced military technology, and we called him on it, he switched to being "mr. environment".

 Rock on wade.  

Dance, rummy, dance!

 :2guns:


----------



## White knight (Oct 30, 2004)

I won't bother reading the post, it's not even the real issue of our time, neither is the war. Even before the election very quite voices were warning about WMD, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Distraction from what?, from the real issues of the day. 

I know other administrations have been trying to pull some fast ones, but public attention or politicians have usually caught them. And they would have some kind of accountability investigation, some kind of Watergate or something Gate. This administration has had none of those, which is something that is unprecedented.

They make all others look like children when it comes to the Art of psychological Warfare, and intimidation. Its no wonder when you look at the players and there past histories, they are the experts who pioneered and raised the bar of these techniques now being used in politics They pushed the limits, by seeing how effective and how much they could get away with in the public arena.

Before they came into public service, terms like disinformation, black information, even the distraction tricks were terms not associated with public politics, they were associated with the spy craft from which these techniques came. In the past the public would not have tolerated such dirty tricks, but generation X has been dumped down. They will get what they deserve because they fell asleep at the helm and were not keeping watch on their post.

Too busy enjoying the wonderful distractions of television and materialism or just plain having a hard time surviving. One only needs to turn on the television to see how dumbed down the public has become. The man on the street style interviews, people off the street are asked simple questions or shown pictures of their political leaders and they cant put a name to the face or answer the question, its truly funny and sad. The sheep will get what they deserve and be devoured by the wolves.

I know its not going to matter much if Kerry gets into office, the money changers, like the backers of CHECK Twenty One, their reach is far and wide, they will just change tactics and come at them at new angles of approach.
They will ultimately get what they want; the public will be hearded like cattle, the agenda will be advanced, because the public fell asleep at the wheel.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

White knight said:
			
		

> I won't bother reading the post, it's not even the real issue of our time, neither is the war. Even before the election very quite voices were warning about WMD, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
> Distraction from what?, from the real issues of the day.
> 
> I know other administrations have been trying to pull some fast ones, but public attention or politicians have usually caught them. And they would have some kind of accountability investigation, some kind of Watergate or something Gate. This administration has had none of those, which is something that is unprecedented.
> ...



You know lying and fraud are a staple of the democratic m.o.

Your condescension is unwarranted here.  I'm a genereation x 'er and we don't buy the liberal crap our parents did.    Get used to it.  We are going to grow the american economy and defend our nation.  Get used to it.

And if Bush spends too much, and I agree he does,  it's only too appeal to the entitlement oriented monsters you libs have tried to turn people into.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's funny, when wade first came here, he was pretending like he was really militarily oriented and really cared about our nation. When that was revealed as a bunch of crap, and we knew that his intention was to be discouraging of expenses on advanced military technology, and we called him on it, he switched to being "mr. environment".



Where do you come up with this crap RWA?  I am military oriented, I just don't like seeing it misused for corporate and individual gain at the public's expense.

Where have you seen me even once oppose a legitimate advanced military system?  The only things I oppose are orbital platforms (too expensive and violate too many treaties) and porkbarrel projects like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which costs 1/3 what an Abrahams costs and endangers our troops and does not perform any of its specified tasks particularly well).

I am in favor of restoring the original order for 800 F-22's by 2008 (its been cut by over half).

I am in favor of stepping up UCAV development, though I have some concerns about this tech and think this should only be applied to strike and fighter type variants - there should be no gunship UCAVs.

I am in favor of nuclear bunker busters.

In my recent letter to the DOD I suggested a new 100% kill controlled radius neutron bomb derivative, a mutual support area defense/control automated turret system, and recommended the development of a fast 3 man armored car.

None of this needs to be damaging to the environment, they are not related issues.  You are just trying to divert the topic.

Admit it, Bush is without a doubt the worst President ever when it comes to envrionmental issues.  He has done more damage to the envrionment than all the Presidents before him combine!


----------



## eric (Oct 30, 2004)

Where the hell is the tinfoil when you need it !!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Where do you come up with this crap RWA?  I am military oriented, I just don't like seeing it misused for corporate and individual gain at the public's expense.
> 
> Where have you seen me even once oppose a legitimate advanced military system?  The only things I oppose are orbital platforms (too expensive and violate too many treaties) and porkbarrel projects like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which costs 1/3 what an Abrahams costs and endangers our troops and does not perform any of its specified tasks particularly well).
> 
> ...



Well In MY letter to the DOD, I suggested Orange Sherbet be included in all MRE's.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You know lying and fraud are a staple of the democratic m.o.



Lying and fraud are common to both parties.  In recent years, more to the republicans and this adminstration than to the democrats over the last 30+ years.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Your condescension is unwarranted here.  I'm a genereation x 'er and we don't buy the liberal crap our parents did.    Get used to it.  We are going to grow the american economy and defend our nation.  Get used to it.



If you're right then generation X will be remembered as the idiot generation.  The generation that didn't understand how the economy works and gave America to the greedy.

Where is your evidence that the economy is growing?  Relative value of the dollar is down (perhaps as much as 30%).  Production is down.  Investment in relative terms is down.  Only spending is up - because of cheap credit.  That's not growing the economy, its spending the economy, which inevitably shrinks the economy.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And if Bush spends too much, and I agree he does,  it's only too appeal to the entitlement oriented monsters you libs have tried to turn people into.



Justify your argument.  Just what entitlements are you talking about?  Welfare accounts for less than 3% of the Fed. budget (5% if you count food stamps, which are as much a benefit to specific food industries as to the poor).  In the entitlements budget, the largest segments by far are military and government employee pensions.

You "generation X" idiots just listen to the bull and do not study the facts.  Then you make descisions you will blame others for when the consequences hit home.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Well In MY letter to the DOD, I suggested Orange Sherbet be included in all MRE's.



I've worked on two DOD related contracts.  My father was head of Navy CIC CINPAC West in the Vietnam war.  I can send letters to DOD and get them at least read and considered.  The point is I am in favor of advanced weapons systems and fully support their development and deployment to keep our troops as safe as possible and to kill the enemy as effectively as possible.

Orange Sherbert would not do well in a MRE, these can include heating elements but not freezing elements  :baby:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Lying and fraud are common to both parties.  In recent years, more to the republicans and this adminstration than to the democrats over the last 30+ years.


Fraud has historically been the mainstay of the dem machine.  You know that.


> If you're right then generation X will be remembered as the idiot generation.  The generation that didn't understand how the economy works and gave America to the greedy.


We will be remembered as the generation who finally threw off the totalitarian shackles of the left in america.


> Where is your evidence that the economy is growing?  Relative value of the dollar is down (perhaps as much as 30%).  Production is down.  Investment in relative terms is down.  Only spending is up - because of cheap credit.  That's not growing the economy, its spending the economy, which inevitably shrinks the economy.


We're not in recession.  The unemployment rate is actually decent, about what Clinton's was when he was reelected.  Cheap credit=spending the economy?  What a nonsensical combination of words.


> Justify your argument.


My argument is self justifying.  You show me where I'm wrong.


> Just what entitlements are you talking about?  Welfare accounts for less than 3% of the Fed. budget (5% if you count food stamps, which are as much a benefit to specific food industries as to the poor).  In the entitlements budget, the largest segments by far are military and government employee pensions.
> 
> You "generation X" idiots just listen to the bull and do not study the facts.  Then you make descisions you will blame others for when the consequences hit home.



Listen g.i. joe, I know there are big government libs in the military too.  You are one.

Since you're being so open and honest,  why don't you tell us who you wish to be president  and why.

Do you want our military to pass a  global test before we can defend ourselves, like JK advocates?


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

eric said:
			
		

> Where the hell is the tinfoil when you need it !!



Eric, did you actually read the article?  I bet not!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Eric, did you actually read the article?  I bet not!



"I bet not.  I bet not.  I'm wade,  I'm a whiny little girl."


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Fraud has historically been the mainstay of the dem machine.  You know that.



That is your spin on things.  The truth is that all politicians misrepresent things a lot.  You are making the assertion that the dems are more prone to this than the republicans, yet you offer not a single shread of proof.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We will be remembered as the generation who finally threw off the totalitarian shackles of the left in america.



No, if you are right (and I don't think you are), you will be remembered as the generation that put on the shackles of corporate slavery.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We're not in recession.  The unemployment rate is actually decent, about what Clinton's was when he was reelected.  Cheap credit=spending the economy?  What a nonsensical combination of words.



Except that with Clinton, unemployment was going down, where with Bush, it's going up.  Real unemployment is going up in this country, the biggest factor in making the figures look as good as they do is the number of people falling out of the labor market because they have been unemployed so long.  And another major factor holding down the unemployment figures is the national gaurd call-ups, which have opened many slots.

When you borrow money to buy crap, you end up in debt.  That's whats going on in this economy.  So yes cheap credit is spending, not growing, the economy.  The crap will be worthless in a few years, the debt will still be there, and most of it is to foreigners.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> My argument is self justifying.  You show me where I'm wrong.



I have many times.  You just say something and then say it's self justifying.  That's a load of crap.  Your saying it's self justifying is just another way of saying you cannot back up your position.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Listen g.i. joe, I know there are big government libs in the military too.  You are one.



What?  Now you're just ranting.   



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Since you're being so open and honest,  why don't you tell us who you wish to be president  and why.



Actually, if I had to pick someone today without any restrictions - I like Arnie.  He has surpised me in many respects.  He'd be good on the environment, good for the economy, and tough on terrorism.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Do you want our military to pass a  global test before we can defend ourselves, like JK advocates?



I think you are mis-understanding that Kerry statement.  He was not saying we should have to pass a global test before taking action, he was saying that if we take action and fail to pass such a test afterwards it damages our national credibility - as proven by Bush's war in Iraq.  That's what happens when you use lies and mis-information to justify a war in the name of anti-terrorism when in fact it is mostly about greed.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> And what does that have to do with envrionmental policy?




Everything.


----------



## wade (Oct 30, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> "I bet not.  I bet not.  I'm wade,  I'm a whiny little girl."



RWA you are such a snot nosed litte asshole.  I guess I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list again huh?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> That is your spin on things.  The truth is that all politicians misrepresent things a lot.  You are making the assertion that the dems are more prone to this than the republicans, yet you offer not a single shread of proof.


I don't waste my time defending what we ALL know to be true.


> No, if you are right (and I don't think you are), you will be remembered as the generation that put on the shackles of corporate slavery.


Corporate slavery?  ahahaha.  Your a worse koolaid drinker than I imagined.


> Except that with Clinton, unemployment was going down, where with Bush, it's going up.  Real unemployment is going up in this country, the biggest factor in making the figures look as good as they do is the number of people falling out of the labor market because they have been unemployed so long.  And another major factor holding down the unemployment figures is the national gaurd call-ups, which have opened many slots.


And jobs are increasing here, And many people are starting their own businesses too.


> When you borrow money to buy crap, you end up in debt.  That's whats going on in this economy.  So yes cheap credit is spending, not growing, the economy.  The crap will be worthless in a few years, the debt will still be there, and most of it is to foreigners.


And you want the government shut down the banks and dictate people's spending habits.  If banks want to extend credit and people want it, it's none of your business.  Making the crap and buying the crap is the cyle of need and need satisfaction that also allows people to buy food and housing.  you're such a commie.


> I have many times.  You just say something and then say it's self justifying.  That's a load of crap.  Your saying it's self justifying is just another way of saying you cannot back up your position.


And you getting online is just another avenue of expressing your ignorance.


> What?  Now you're just ranting.


Nope.  you're a  big government lib.


> Actually, if I had to pick someone today without any restrictions - I like Arnie.  He has surpised me in many respects.  He'd be good on the environment, good for the economy, and tough on terrorism.


Someone running please.  Like Bush or Kerry perhaps?


> I think you are mis-understanding that Kerry statement.  He was not saying we should have to pass a global test before taking action, he was saying that if we take action and fail to pass such a test afterwards it damages our national credibility - as proven by Bush's war in Iraq.  That's what happens when you use lies and mis-information to justify a war in the name of anti-terrorism when in fact it is mostly about greed.



That's not what he said at all.  Maybe that's the spin, but that's not what he said.


----------



## eric (Oct 30, 2004)

> Eric, did you actually read the article? I bet not!



I was responding to White Knights conspiracy theories, not the article !


----------



## Said1 (Oct 30, 2004)

eric said:
			
		

> I was responding to White Knights conspiracy theories, not the article !



How is that related to environmental policy? 


Stay on topic


----------



## eric (Oct 30, 2004)

> How is that related to the environmental policy?



It's not ! I felt like making a comment based on the what White Knight said. Debates and negotiations are fluid and subject to change based on any introduced subject matter. This in no way changes the overall tone, but thanks anyway.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 30, 2004)

eric said:
			
		

> It's not ! I felt like making a comment based on the what White Knight said. Debates and negotiations are fluid and subject to change based on any introduced subject matter. This in no way changes the overall tone, but thanks anyway.



We're both joking right?


----------



## eric (Oct 30, 2004)

But of course !!


----------



## Said1 (Oct 30, 2004)

eric said:
			
		

> But of course !!



Phew. Now back to tin foil and sustainable development. 

Do you think Wade has all of us on ignore?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 30, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Phew. Now back to tin foil and sustainable development.
> 
> Do you think Wade has all of us on ignore?



Liberals love ignoring things.


----------



## Zhukov (Oct 30, 2004)

I got about four paragraphs into that article.

All it was was, was...jesus wade is that the shit you educate yourself with?

How am I supposed to take it seriously when it's a guy complaining about the quality of fish in NY (well no shit sherlock, and just how democratic has NY been for how long?  maybe they should clean their own damn mess up), and the _installation_ of the President?

I'll be honest, after the word install, I just stopped reading it.  Why waste my time?  Even if every word after that was the god's-honest-truth it wouldn't matter.  The man came out full force in the brown shirt, and I immeadiately dismissed anything else he had to say.  I had to, because in a matter of four paragraphs he proved himself a fool.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 30, 2004)

Wade, looks like the other thread somehow got high-jacked into environmentalism.   Anyway, I, as many others on the right, are also concerned about our environment, except we are not into the fanaticism displayed by many of the left-wing groups.  Unfortunately, many left-wing environmental organizations are no longer really about the environment, but only a tool for the political objectives of the left wing such as socialism and winning political campaigns.   Take a look at the Green Party.  Take a look at the ridiculous claims by the left, such as the hurricanes in Florida are so bad because of Bush and global warming.   These things are big turnoffs for most Americans, looks likes you got some good feedback on this thread already.  

You did bring up some valid issues which probably need a thread of their own somewhere where those really interested can discuss them in depth.  However, for some quick "Republican answers" to your concerns, take a look at the White House site regarding the environment.   I'm sure you will consider it only minimal, but the right wing is actually doing positive things for the environment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/


----------



## wade (Oct 31, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And you want the government shut down the banks and dictate people's spending habits.  If banks want to extend credit and people want it, it's none of your business.  Making the crap and buying the crap is the cyle of need and need satisfaction that also allows people to buy food and housing.  you're such a commie.



Umm... it is the Fed that is dictating artificially low interest rates.  I'd think you'd be opposed to this.  The market should dictate the interest rates, not the Government!

But what does any of this have to do with the point of this thread?

George W. Bush is turning the USA into a giant sewer!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Umm... it is the Fed that is dictating artificially low interest rates.  I'd think you'd be opposed to this.  The market should dictate the interest rates, not the Government!
> 
> But what does any of this have to do with the point of this thread?
> 
> George W. Bush is turning the USA into a giant sewer!



Like you always say wade, totally unregulated capitalism is not good.  

This post is so bad wade.  It's the post of a frustrated child.

Face it, wade,  you're wrong on almost everything.


----------



## KarlMarx (Oct 31, 2004)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> The only rainforest in the U.S. is in Hawaii, and it isn't shrinking.  We've done our part and we keep telling other countries to do theirs, but they don't listen.  What are we supposed to do?  Invade their country?  Oh, I'm sure the U.S. taxpayers would just LOVE that, especially the guys fighting the war, almost none of which would be tree huggers.


Anyone that lives in Upstate New York (like I do) can tell you that the wilderness is reclaiming a lot of old farm land up here. 

With the exodus of jobs and people from Upstate New York, the wilderness is making a comeback.And I don't live out in the middle of no where. I live in a small city with about 100,000 people (if you count the suburbs).

Many of the things I was taught about nature and its fragility as a child are certainly not true. My experience is showing that Nature can be amazingly resilient.

With the exodus of manufacturing from the US, the biggest polluters are now in Asia. But you won't hear that from people like RFK Jr, because it doesn't serve their anti-America, anti-corporation agenda. Ironically, it is RFK Jr that has benefitted the most from the greedy corporations, the foul free market economy and American hegemony. Strangely, the ultra-rich are the ones that push this stuff, because they will be the last to see the consequences of their misguided policies (if they ever do). The ones that will get to feel the consequences first are the poor and middle class schmucks like us. I guess if things get too rustic for RFK, he can just jet his family over to some other country where the economy is better (much like Peter Sallinger, his uncle's former press secretary, did when he objected to the presidency of GWB). It must be nice to make rules for everyone else, then run away from the consequences, while the rest of us poor souls are stuck holding the bag.

It is amazing to me that the same people who have been complaining about American largesse for the past generation are the same ones complaining about the exportation of jobs to other countries. Remember the old chestnut that America has 5% of the world's population but consumes 33% of its resources? Of course, many environmentalists don't consider the consequences of the policies that they favor. Whenever you regulate business to protect the environment, you have economic consequences. One reason that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas is that third world countries don't have the strict environmental laws that we have. When it comes to environmental policy, you also have "to think past Phase I" as Thomas Sowell puts it.



> Umm... it is the Fed that is dictating artificially low interest rates. I'd think you'd be opposed to this. The market should dictate the interest rates, not the Government!



"Artificially low interest rates"???? As opposed to "naturally occuring interest rates"? The market does dictate interest rates, indirectly. When the economy "heats up" the money supply increases and so does inflation. When the economy slows down, the money supply shrinks and the danger of deflation increase. The Federal Reserve Board (or "the Fed") responds to this by controlling the money supply through raising or lowering the prime interest rate. The Fed was created on December 23, 1913, with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat).  It was created by Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. By the way, part of the reason for the bad economy of the late 1970s is Carter's meddling with Fed policy. He wouldn't let the Fed chairman do his job (i.e. raise and lower interest rates as needed)....as a result inflation went up to 18% (and I remember it well!). Once Reagan got in the White House, he let the Fed do its thing and inflation was down to less than 5% in a couple of years. Furthermore, the Great Depression of the 1930s was exacerbated by FDR's and Hoover's insistence that prime interest rates be kept high in spite of the fact that the money supply was dangerously low. This helped to start and extend a deflationary cycle and lengthened the Great Depression.


----------



## wade (Nov 1, 2004)

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> Wade, looks like the other thread somehow got high-jacked into environmentalism.   Anyway, I, as many others on the right, are also concerned about our environment, except we are not into the fanaticism displayed by many of the left-wing groups.  Unfortunately, many left-wing environmental organizations are no longer really about the environment, but only a tool for the political objectives of the left wing such as socialism and winning political campaigns.   Take a look at the Green Party.  Take a look at the ridiculous claims by the left, such as the hurricanes in Florida are so bad because of Bush and global warming.   These things are big turnoffs for most Americans, looks likes you got some good feedback on this thread already.
> 
> You did bring up some valid issues which probably need a thread of their own somewhere where those really interested can discuss them in depth.  However, for some quick "Republican answers" to your concerns, take a look at the White House site regarding the environment.   I'm sure you will consider it only minimal, but the right wing is actually doing positive things for the environment.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/



Are you serious?  That website is pure spin on Bush's anti-envrionmental policies.  You cannot put the oil, chemical, asbestos, etc... lobbiests in charge of the EPA and then make any kind of claims to be pro-enviromnent!  You cannot have non-scientists rewrite reports written by scientists and then claim positions based upon those corrupted reports have any legitimacy.

Please, read the article I posted at the start of this thread.  Then go into any part of it and research the facts on the issues presented, and see for yourself that Bush is litterally destroying the enviromnent in the name of corporate profits and greed.


----------



## wade (Nov 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Like you always say wade, totally unregulated capitalism is not good.
> 
> This post is so bad wade.  It's the post of a frustrated child.
> 
> Face it, wade,  you're wrong on almost everything.



The onlything frustrating here RWA is that you clearly are a child.  You have no real-life experiance upon which to base your opinions.  You have never been to a village where almost everyone was starving.  You have never watched a baby die because of malnutricion.  I doubt you have ever even known a poor american.  You simply lack any real world compassion for others, your positions are all those of someone who is from a home of privledge and does not really know anything about anything.

I hope you grow up someday.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This post is so bad wade.



It should be regulated.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> The onlything frustrating here RWA is that you clearly are a child.  You have no real-life experiance upon which to base your opinions.  You have never been to a village where almost everyone was starving.  You have never watched a baby die because of malnutricion.  I doubt you have ever even known a poor american.  You simply lack any real world compassion for others, your positions are all those of someone who is from a home of privledge and does not really know anything about anything.
> 
> I hope you grow up someday.



And these people are usually in their situation because warlords and tryrants have prevented need sustaining markets from flourishing. These dictators keep the place so unstable and fucked up that no companies will invest in those places to sell them food, housing, and give them jobs.  And the disgusting thing about you libs is you typically look the other way so you can get the tyrants vote at your beloved U.N.  


You're so full of it wade, that your eyes are brown.  hey hey sha la la


----------



## Said1 (Nov 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And these people are usually in their situation because warlords and tryrants have prevented need sustaining markets from flourishing. These dictators keep the place so unstable and fucked up that no companies will invest in those places to sell them food, housing, and give them jobs.  And the disgusting thing about you libs is you typically look the other way so you can get the tyrants vote at your beloved U.N.




NGOs can't reach these people half the time because their governments won't provide security, and the UN won't either. Now, you tell me who really gives a fuck about them Wade?


----------



## wade (Nov 3, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I don't waste my time defending what we ALL know to be true.



Just because you assert that "we ALL know" something to be true does not make it so.  You are wrong, the democrats are no more prone to lying than the republicancs.  And they are less prone to lying than the Bush administration.

The fact is you cannot back up this position, so you claim we all agree with you, when in fact we don't.  Your argument is the argument of someone who knows they are wrong.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 3, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Just because you assert that "we ALL know" something to be true does not make it so.  You are wrong, the democrats are no more prone to lying than the republicancs.  And they are less prone to lying than the Bush administration.
> 
> The fact is you cannot back up this position, so you claim we all agree with you, when in fact we don't.  Your argument is the argument of someone who knows they are wrong.



Just because you say it doesn't make it so.  Same applies to you.  Believe it or not, Kerry and Moore have been caught in ten times the lies W. has, so, in the words of the ketchup lady, shove it.


----------



## wade (Nov 3, 2004)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> Just because you say it doesn't make it so.  Same applies to you.  Believe it or not, Kerry and Moore have been caught in ten times the lies W. has, so, in the words of the ketchup lady, shove it.



That's just pure bull.  Besides, the whole pushing of this kind of crap into the discussion is just RWA's way of trying to obfuscate the issues at hand.

The point still remains:

*George W. Bush is turning the USA into a giant sewer!*

And all the name calling and mud slinging you and RWA can do won't change this fact one bit.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 3, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> That's just pure bull.  Besides, the whole pushing of this kind of crap into the discussion is just RWA's way of trying to obfuscate the issues at hand.
> 
> The point still remains:
> 
> ...



Hey wade.  environmentalism is anti human and BUSH WINS!


----------



## wade (Nov 3, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Hey wade.  environmentalism is anti human and BUSH WINS!



I told you months ago Bush would win.  I'm surprised it was as close as it was.

Evironmentalism is "anti-human"?  Pumping mercury into the air is anti-human RWA.  What could be more anti-human than dooming millions of babies to lives of health problems and stupidity?

You are anti-human RWA.  You believe that anything that is good for your wallet is good for people.  So you support a man who has put the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and you will then undoubtedly try to blame the democrats/liberals when the chickens start disappearing.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 3, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I told you months ago Bush would win.  I'm surprised it was as close as it was.
> 
> Evironmentalism is "anti-human"?  Pumping mercury into the air is anti-human RWA.  What could be more anti-human than dooming millions of babies to lives of health problems and stupidity?
> 
> You are anti-human RWA.  You believe that anything that is good for your wallet is good for people.  So you support a man who has put the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and you will then undoubtedly try to blame the democrats/liberals when the chickens start disappearing.



I am for basic envrionmental protections.  But the environmentalists of today are really just advocates of socialism.

I believe people being able to have jobs is good for people. Needlessly dampening economic growth based on the RED HERRING of global warming is immoral.


----------



## wade (Nov 3, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I am for basic envrionmental protections.  But the environmentalists of today are really just advocates of socialism.
> 
> I believe people being able to have jobs is good for people. Needlessly dampening economic growth based on the RED HERRING of global warming is immoral.



Even Bush's commissioned study reported that industrial CO2 output is a major cause of global warming:



> Bush Disses Global Warming Report
> 
> WASHINGTON, June 4, 2002
> 
> ...



(It was later found that in fact Bush had not even read the report, he lied in saying he did and later admitted he had not.)

So even when his own scientists report that Global Warming is caused by human activity Bush denies it and refuses to take any reasonable action to curb the ever increasing CO2 output of industry.

Do you realize the disaster that will occur if Global warming continues at its current pace?  According to the models, and their is pleanty of evidence in the Ant-Arctic to support this, ocean levels are rising and will continue to do so at an increasing rate.  Within 50 years the levels could easily rise 5-10 feet, wiping out large portions of most of our cities and most of the major cities of W. Europe.

Even you have to admit that when the President appoints the leading lobbiests for the Coal, Oil, Chemical, Asbestos, and Hog farming industries as the department heads of the EPA, we, the American people are going to get screwed.



> ...
> In April 2002, the EPA had prepared a nationwide warning about a brand of asbestos called Zonolite, which contained a form of the substance *far more lethally dangerous than ordinary asbestos*. However, reportedly at the last minute, *the White House stopped the warning.* Why? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which broke the story, noted that the Bush administration at the time was pushing legislation limiting the asbestos manufacturer's liability. Whatever the reason, such silence by an agency charged with protecting our health is a silent *lie* in my book
> 
> One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. It is certainly not the business of Congress. And if it's not the business of the people's representatives, it's certainly no business of yours or mine.
> ...


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 3, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Even Bush's commissioned study reported that industrial CO2 output is a major cause of global warming:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well you know.  All these guys are bonesmen.  Even bush will stoop to using the lie of global warming to facilitate his bilderberger agenda.


----------



## wade (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Well you know.  All these guys are bonesmen.  Even bush will stoop to using the lie of global warming to facilitate his bilderberger agenda.



Ummm.. this is non-sensical.  I think you have mis-read something somewhere.

And your contention that Global Warming is a lie is just outright silly.  It's a very provable phenomna.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 4, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Ummm.. this is non-sensical.  I think you have mis-read something somewhere.
> 
> And your contention that Global Warming is a lie is just outright silly.  It's a very provable phenomna.



You're silly.  Silly goose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're silly.  Silly goose.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
> 
> The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
> ...




Ha-ha. I saw that on th learning channel.


----------



## deaddude (Nov 4, 2004)

The idea that environmentalism is anti-human is ridiculous. In case you havent notice RWA humanity NEEDS an environment. Environmentalism merely seeks to ensure that short term gains now do not lead to long term losses and burdens for posterity.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 4, 2004)

deaddude said:
			
		

> Environmentalism merely seeks to ensure that short term gains now do not lead to long term losses and burdens for posterity.



Which is why decentralization, and standardized environmental policies are needed to ensure LONG term sustainable development. 

Oops sorry, you're not Wade, my bad.


----------



## deaddude (Nov 4, 2004)

What kind of developement are you talking about?



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> Oops sorry, you're not Wade, my bad.


 no problem happens all the time


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 4, 2004)

deaddude said:
			
		

> The idea that environmentalism is anti-human is ridiculous. In case you havent notice RWA humanity NEEDS an environment. Environmentalism merely seeks to ensure that short term gains now do not lead to long term losses and burdens for posterity.




You're right.  But most environementalists take it too far, sacrificing new jobs that people need for the boogeyman of global warming.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 4, 2004)

deaddude said:
			
		

> What kind of developement are you talking about?




Sustainable development mainly in underdeveloped or developing nations. Shrimp farming is a good example.





> no problem happens all the time



I remember you now, you're ok...for now.


----------



## wade (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're silly.  Silly goose.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
> 
> The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
> ...



Classic use of mis-information to create pure crap.  Here's what Dr. Sami Solanki, who is the source of info for your supposed "proof" has to say:



> The change in solar brightness over the past 20 years is not enough to cause the observed changes in our climate. But the indirect effects may be larger, and the range of their influence is unclear, so more study is needed, he added.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



If you look into it a little, all the existing evidence is that solar changes only accounts for perhaps about 12% of the noted global warming phenomena, probably less.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 4, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Classic use of mis-information to create pure crap.  Here's what Dr. Sami Solanki, who is the source of info for your supposed "proof" has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look into it a little, all the existing evidence is that solar changes only accounts for perhaps about 12% of the noted global warming phenomena, probably less.



Bliggidy blip.


----------



## wade (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're right.  But most environementalists take it too far, sacrificing new jobs that people need for the boogeyman of global warming.



And if you noticed, I never emphasized the global warming arguments in my posts about Bush's anti-enviromental policies.

Bush's attack on clean air, clean water, clean land, and preservation of fragile ecologies are the emphisis of my comments in this thread.  All things that will have dire consequences on the American people within a decade.  Global warming is more of a 50-100 year concern.


----------



## wade (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Bliggidy blip.



LOL - you're shown point blank that your source article is full of shit and that's your response!   :duh3:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 4, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> And if you noticed, I never emphasized the global warming arguments in my posts about Bush's anti-enviromental policies.
> 
> Bush's attack on clean air, clean water, clean land, and preservation of fragile ecologies are the emphisis of my comments in this thread.  All things that will have dire consequences on the American people within a decade.  Global warming is more of a 50-100 year concern.



Wade, do you like pancakes?


----------



## Said1 (Nov 4, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Wade, do you like pancakes?



LOL I'd give ya points, but I have to spread it around some more.

Question: Wasn't Kyoto squashed during Clinton's admin? Something about a resolution being passed about not voting for it if it came up?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 4, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> LOL I'd give ya points, but I have to spread it around some more.
> 
> Question: Wasn't Kyoto squashed during Clinton's admin? Something about a resolution being passed about not voting for it if it came up?



Yeah.  CLINTON DID IT!


----------



## Said1 (Nov 5, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yeah.  CLINTON DID IT!



Intersting. Nice avatar by the way....sell out.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 5, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Intersting. Nice avatar by the way....sell out.



Thanks.

I'm a Seinfeld fanatic.

George:   That's my friend Jerry, but Jerry doesn't wear glasses!


----------



## Said1 (Nov 5, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> I'm a Seinfeld fanatic.
> 
> George:   That's my friend Jerry, but Jerry doesn't wear glasses!




It's quiet in here now. I thought Wade would be all over the Clinton Kyoto reference hhmmp.


The bubble boy is my favorite episode, that and the one where Kramer assembles an old talk show set in his apartment.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 5, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> It's quiet in here now. I thought Wade would be all over the Clinton Kyoto reference hhmmp.
> 
> 
> The bubble boy is my favorite episode, that and the one where Kramer assembles an old talk show set in his apartment.




George:Sorry, the answer is "Moops".


----------



## Said1 (Nov 5, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> George:Sorry, the answer is "Moops".



Moors. Doesn't his bubble explode after that?


----------



## wade (Nov 6, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> It's quiet in here now. I thought Wade would be all over the Clinton Kyoto reference hhmmp.



You mean:



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> Question: Wasn't Kyoto squashed during Clinton's admin? Something about a resolution being passed about not voting for it if it came up?



Sorry, I've got a lot going on right now, cannot spend so much time on this board this weekend.

Clinton didn't want to sign the Kyoto agreement unless 3rd world big polluter countries like China did as well.  But in the end he still decided to support it, it was Congress that refused.



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> The bubble boy is my favorite episode, that and the one where Kramer assembles an old talk show set in his apartment.



Kramer's kidney stone episode is my fav.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> it was Congress that refused.



That what I was asking more or less. It was still done during Clinton's admin though, not Bush's.  :funnyface


----------



## wade (Nov 7, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> That what I was asking more or less. It was still done during Clinton's admin though, not Bush's.  :funnyface



A Republican congress defeats a Clinton treaty and you blame Clinton and the democrats???  Wow, how obtuse can you be?


----------



## wade (Nov 8, 2004)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Wade - here is my favorite part though!



Evil, look back at my posts.  I fully expected Bush to win.  Everything pointed to this happening, and even if he didn't he would win because the voting machines were rigged (the evidence on this is rolling in now), though I personally believe Bush won this election without cheating (but he'd have cheated if he was loosing).

It's probably a good thing Kerry didn't get elected.  If he had been elected, he'd have been a lame duck president from day one given the makeup of congress.  This would have allowed the republicans to run the show and blame Kerry for all their failures.

With Bush having won, there will be no excuses 4 years from now.  We will still be occupying Iraq, the world will clearly be a more dangerous place than it is today, the economy will be in ruins, we will have suffered at least one ecological disaster (probably the death of a major body of water), 60+ million Americans will be without any form of health insurance, and finally the republicans will have to take responsibility for their deeds.

The unemployed will decide the next election - no other issue will matter.

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that....

The Bush Administration is turning the USA into a sewer!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 8, 2004)

> The unemployed will decide the next election - no other issue will matter.



You mean 5.4% of the population, many of whom don't vote, will determine our future?  Impressive.


----------



## eric (Nov 8, 2004)

> With Bush having won, there will be no excuses 4 years from now. We will still be occupying Iraq, the world will clearly be a more dangerous place than it is today, the economy will be in ruins, we will have suffered at least one ecological disaster (probably the death of a major body of water), 60+ million Americans will be without any form of health insurance, and finally the republicans will have to take responsibility for their deeds.



Wow !! You really are a "cup is half full" kind of guy !!

Take my advice, you need to get out more !


----------



## Mariner (Nov 9, 2004)

Do you happen to have a link for the Robert Kennedy piece that you quoted above? I looked around on the web but couldn't find it all in one place. I'd like to share it with friends whom I've been trying to convince to join NRDC, of which I'm a long-time member. Thanks.

I hope this link helps remind Republicans of their long-lost heritage as defenders of the environment. It's not too late to change course, guys! Are oil and gas interests really so deserving of federal welfare and protection as Bush seems to think? The true welfare queens of this country are the corporations who have legislation written in their interest, to reduce their tax burdens or alleviate them of responsibility for the general welfare. The size of the entitlements they receive dwarfs that of personal welfare for poor people.

Mariner.


----------



## CSM (Nov 9, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> Do you happen to have a link for the Robert Kennedy piece that you quoted above? I looked around on the web but couldn't find it all in one place. I'd like to share it with friends whom I've been trying to convince to join NRDC, of which I'm a long-time member. Thanks.
> 
> I hope this link helps remind Republicans of their long-lost heritage as defenders of the environment. It's not too late to change course, guys! Are oil and gas interests really so deserving of federal welfare and protection as Bush seems to think? The true welfare queens of this country are the corporations who have legislation written in their interest, to reduce their tax burdens or alleviate them of responsibility for the general welfare. The size of the entitlements they receive dwarfs that of personal welfare for poor people.
> 
> Mariner.



What the heck does this have to do with the heading of this thread?


----------



## wade (Nov 9, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> Do you happen to have a link for the Robert Kennedy piece that you quoted above? I looked around on the web but couldn't find it all in one place. I'd like to share it with friends whom I've been trying to convince to join NRDC, of which I'm a long-time member. Thanks.
> 
> I hope this link helps remind Republicans of their long-lost heritage as defenders of the environment. It's not too late to change course, guys! Are oil and gas interests really so deserving of federal welfare and protection as Bush seems to think? The true welfare queens of this country are the corporations who have legislation written in their interest, to reduce their tax burdens or alleviate them of responsibility for the general welfare. The size of the entitlements they receive dwarfs that of personal welfare for poor people.
> 
> Mariner.



It's at the bottom of the last page of the quoted article at http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=183405&postcount=4.

The link to the site is: http://tuberose.com/Environmental_Terrorism.html


----------



## Mariner (Nov 9, 2004)

CSM--huh? The first post on this thread was a lengthy article by Robert Kennedy or the NRDC. I'm an NRDC member but hadn't seen this particular long piece. I simply wanted the link for it, which Wade provided, since I hadn't noticed it at the end of the article when I first read it. 

Mariner.


----------



## wade (Nov 10, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> CSM--huh? The first post on this thread was a lengthy article by Robert Kennedy or the NRDC. I'm an NRDC member but hadn't seen this particular long piece. I simply wanted the link for it, which Wade provided, since I hadn't noticed it at the end of the article when I first read it.
> 
> Mariner.



Mariner, you should read the whole article at the website.  I deleted some passages (marked) to shorten it by about 33%.  Most of it has to do with the history of environmental law dating back to Roman times.


----------



## Mariner (Nov 10, 2004)

I'm forwarding it today to about 400 people. 

Mariner.


----------



## Merlin (Nov 14, 2004)

First of all, consider the source. Kennedy!!! Kennedy????? That right there should stop all creditability to the article. There are more trees on this earth, admittedly not more forrest, than they were 200 years ago. But one thing to remember here is that we are living in a Republic society. Majority rules. If the majority wants to turn the U.S.A. into a sewer, so be it. If the majority says that blond haired and blue eyed people has to live on the north or east side of a street, then all blond haired and blue eyed people on the south or west side of the street better start packing. The people are getting fed up with the so called environmental groups that are trying to kill off the humans so some silly unheard of tadpole, rat or frog that nobody is heard of can live and I'm sure we could do without. I sit and ponder sometimes where and how all these ignorant organizations got started.


----------



## wade (Nov 14, 2004)

Merlin said:
			
		

> First of all, consider the source. Kennedy!!! Kennedy????? That right there should stop all creditability to the article. There are more trees on this earth, admittedly not more forrest, than they were 200 years ago. But one thing to remember here is that we are living in a Republic society. Majority rules. If the majority wants to turn the U.S.A. into a sewer, so be it. If the majority says that blond haired and blue eyed people has to live on the north or east side of a street, then all blond haired and blue eyed people on the south or west side of the street better start packing. The people are getting fed up with the so called environmental groups that are trying to kill off the humans so some silly unheard of tadpole, rat or frog that nobody is heard of can live and I'm sure we could do without. I sit and ponder sometimes where and how all these ignorant organizations got started.



Ummm.. more trees today than 200 years ago?  Huh?

That's right, if you cannot find a legitimate counter argument, attack the source.  Try discrediting any of the arguments made in the article, because this tactic is bogus and even the conservatives here know it.

Who's talking about killing off humans?  What we are talking about is preventing the rape of the environment to satisfy the purest of greed on the part of the select few who happen to be in power at the moment.

You are describing fascism, not the US Republic.  In the USA, you cannot vote away someones "inalienable rights", no matter how much of a majority you can muster.  I suggest you take a civics class and learn what it means to be an American.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 14, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Ummm.. more trees today than 200 years ago?  Huh?
> 
> That's right, if you cannot find a legitimate counter argument, attack the source.  Try discrediting any of the arguments made in the article, because this tactic is bogus and even the conservatives here know it.
> 
> ...



Look wade, conservatives care about the environment.  But I'm not willing to stifle the growth of humanity for a bunch of theories.

What pisses me off about the "sustainable development" movement is they do nothing for development. They oppose developers.  They don't investigate the science of how to develop sustainably.  They don't offer solutions.  All they say is "conserve".  That's not good enough.  At their core, they're a bunch of commies.


----------



## Merlin (Nov 14, 2004)

Wade, I suggest you read the Constitution of The United States. What "inalienable rights" are you talking about? The only inalienable right you have is to fight for your inalienable rights. That don't guarantee you that you are going to win them though. I live in a republic, and having a Constitution that we live by, that guarantees me that what ever the majority of the people vote for, that is what we get whether I want it or not. "BUT", we have an internal enemy called the Supreme Court that makes its own laws instead of interpreting the Constitution as it is written. The environmental group is hollering about not wanting to drill for oil in Alaska. That is not just being ignorant, that is plain stupid. It wouldn't hurt a single one of the earths creatures. If you would lay down a sheet of plywood and placed a needle point on it, that is the amount on property it would take for oil exploration. Yes, the tree huggers would rather kill off the human population than bother a little creature that we could do without and probably need to get rid of anyway. One of Bush's promises was to open Alaska for oil drilling. Being in a Republic and him getting the majority of the votes, I fully expect him to do it.


----------



## wade (Nov 15, 2004)

Merlin said:
			
		

> Wade, I suggest you read the Constitution of The United States. What "inalienable rights" are you talking about? The only inalienable right you have is to fight for your inalienable rights. That don't guarantee you that you are going to win them though. I live in a republic, and having a Constitution that we live by, that guarantees me that what ever the majority of the people vote for, that is what we get whether I want it or not. "BUT", we have an internal enemy called the Supreme Court that makes its own laws instead of interpreting the Constitution as it is written. The environmental group is hollering about not wanting to drill for oil in Alaska. That is not just being ignorant, that is plain stupid. It wouldn't hurt a single one of the earths creatures. If you would lay down a sheet of plywood and placed a needle point on it, that is the amount on property it would take for oil exploration. Yes, the tree huggers would rather kill off the human population than bother a little creature that we could do without and probably need to get rid of anyway. One of Bush's promises was to open Alaska for oil drilling. Being in a Republic and him getting the majority of the votes, I fully expect him to do it.



Read the bill of rights.  No matter how much of a majority you have, these are sacrosanct and you cannot vote them away.

I really have no problem with oil "exploration", but you are ignoring the environmental impact of the roads, ports, pipelines, and human support facilities needed to make such operations meaningful.  All the reputable sources agree that expanding the oil operations on the N. Bank will have significant enviromental impact.

But again, oil "exploration" and even properly managed oil extraction and transport are not really that big of issues to me.  Blowing the tops off mountains to get at the minerals, dumping huge quantities of hog shit from factory farms into the rivers untreated, and pumping unscrubbed coal smoke into the atmosphere are the issues that I'm concerned about.

As for oil, I believe we should explore, we should even probably tap some key oil fields in Alaska.  But I do not believe we should pump that oil.  We should not use American oil until we really really need it.  It is much smarter to use foreign oil while it is available, and save domestic oil for the future.


----------



## wade (Nov 15, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Look wade, conservatives care about the environment.  But I'm not willing to stifle the growth of humanity for a bunch of theories.
> 
> What pisses me off about the "sustainable development" movement is they do nothing for development. They oppose developers.  They don't investigate the science of how to develop sustainably.  They don't offer solutions.  All they say is "conserve".  That's not good enough.  At their core, they're a bunch of commies.



Everyone who does not think as you do are a bunch of "commies".

Show me any sign that the Conservatives, especially the Neo-Conservatives, care about the environment.  You cannot!  Why?  Because they believe there are not many generations left before the lord returns so there is no point in saving anything for future generations!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 15, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Everyone who does not think as you do are a bunch of "commies".


Nope.  people who ignorantly deny the obvious superiority of capitalism over socialism are commies.


> Show me any sign that the Conservatives, especially the Neo-Conservatives, care about the environment.  You cannot!  Why?  Because they believe there are not many generations left before the lord returns so there is no point in saving anything for future generations!



We're not all fundies, mongo.

we believe in a different form of incentivization, dipnard.


----------



## wade (Nov 15, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Nope.  people who ignorantly deny the obvious superiority of capitalism over socialism are commies.
> 
> 
> We're not all fundies, mongo.
> ...



RWA, you are a snot nosed kid who doesn't know anything yet.  Believe it or not, I was more conservative than you are when I was a kid.  Then I learned better, over years, after seeing the inside of how things work.

You are just a fool and a tool.  Hopefully someday you will figure it out.


----------



## Said1 (Nov 16, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Nope.  people who ignorantly deny the obvious superiority of capitalism over socialism are commies.



You're box is full again dumbhead . :spank3:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 16, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> You're box is full again dumbhead . :spank3:



Ok.  It's clear.  Now you can continue to send me erotica!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 16, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> RWA, you are a snot nosed kid who doesn't know anything yet.  Believe it or not, I was more conservative than you are when I was a kid.  Then I learned better, over years, after seeing the inside of how things work.
> 
> You are just a fool and a tool.  Hopefully someday you will figure it out.



Yep.  personal insults are all you have left.  What is your point wade?  in general, as a person?  You won't even say which candidate you support and you want respect?

Your main point in life seems to be that interest rates are fatally low, and credit is murderously easy to attain.  BFD.


----------



## Eightball (Nov 30, 2004)

Wade:

I have the sensible answer...... mandatory abortions for families that exceed 2 children, and mandatory Euthanasia for anyone over the age of 62.

Oh, crimony!  That's already happening in China!  One of the most polluted countrys in the world.

Wade, your right about Russia being one of the worst polluters.  Do you have any idea why they would sign the Kyoto Treaty?  For Russia to sign the Kyoto Treaty is like Martha Stewart coming out with a book on "1001 Ways To Make Spaghetti".  Something stinks in St. Petersburg, and doesn't make sense.  Now I'm really glad the U.S. didn't sign Kyoto.  For Russia to jump in bed with the supporters of Kyoto, is very suspicious.  In Russia's case, they have neither the monetary resources to institute environmental reform, nor the true desire.  

As far as the U.S. being a sewer, that's a little bit of the old, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" rhetoric.  

Right now, if we could get the "kooks" like you and the other anti-human life environmentalist out of the way, we could start mass building nuclear power plants in this country and really end our dependents on fossil fuels.  

As much as I abhor France, they are producing so much electric power via Nuclear power plants, that they are currently selling excess power to neighboring countries.  With their excess power they are producing hydrogen as an alternative fuel.   

The safety record of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. is second to none!  Even Three Mile Island was contained.......although the liberal Nazis tried to make it seem like a Chernoyble(mispelled, I know).

The fossil fueled power industry in the U.S. can't even begin to match the safety record of U.S. Nuclear power industry.  Coal burning puts more radioactive debris into the atmosphere than all the open air a-bomb tests of the 50's and 60's!  Why do the enviro-Nazis fight Nuclear power?  They know it's safe........That's because the enviromental movement has been hijacked for years by politicos, that really want wealth distribution, and a socialist nation.  

SUV's get blamed for killing people, rather than the operators of the SUV's.  Just read the newspapers, and you'll never see "driver of SUV kills pedestrian", but you'll see, "SUV loses control and kills pedestrian".  Why the difference in the news.  SUV's represent, excessive fossil fuel useage, and that makes them enemies of the left, because the left and the Enviro-Nazis are totally imbedded together.  We know that the news media is over 80% imbedded with liberal leaning, Politcal Science majors from our "fair and balanced" institutions of higher learning.lol.

Spotted owl protection in the Pacific Northwest(Northern California) absolutely ruined the lumber industry.  Modern forestry practices by the major lumber companies in Northern California that stressed replanting, and harvesting practices were producing very positive result in the area of managing renewable resources.  Well, the little owl put thousands out of jobs........put thousands on welfare, and basically ruined the once thriving economy in that area.  The sad scenario to this hyper-reaction to the little owls safety was the recent conclusion that the Spotted owl is not really endangered, and that it is highly adaptable to nesting in human created structures, such as barns, etc.  All along the cry was that Redwood trees were it's only safe haven to live, and reproduce.  If you go up there now, you will find that Arcata, Eureka, Mckinleyville, Fortuna, and many of those once thriving lumber towns, are now little, "Berkeleys"!  Arcata, California, the home of Humboldt State University, is now only second to U.C. Berkeley when it comes to liberal activism.  Humboldt State was once the college known for graduating Forestry Management majors, but is now the bastion for Political Science students.  Vegan shops and restaurants are all over Humboldt county.  Also remember that the choicest Hemp is grown in Humboldt county.  It's funny, how Hemp production, and liberal politics, and culture, plus radical environmentalism seem to be found hand in hand.  Am I missing something?

Regards, Eightballsidepocket :usa:


----------



## Mariner (Nov 30, 2004)

environmental policy was reported in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. The banning of CFC's, the Journal said, has been the most successful single global environmental action yet, protecting the ozone layer that keeps us all from being fried by the sun's UV-range output. The second most-damaging chemicals to the ozone layer also were placed under an agreement, which the U.S. signed on to, that would have reduced them to 35% this year. Bush is requesting an exemption for certain industries in the U.S., even though the technology to accomplish the task (soil aeration and decontamination) that these chemicals do is readily at hand (cover the ground with black plastic). With the whole globe agreeing, why buck the trend? Why punish farmers who are choosing the more environmentally sound methods by giving exemptions to certain (campaign contributor) farmers who don't care? 

The name of the U.S. president who signed the initial treaty: Ronald Reagan.

Eightball--you seem not to have noticed a few things, like the fact that songbird population in some areas are down 90%, that we've cut down 96% of the redwoods, and that anything that has gotten cleaned up has happened through terrific local activism (such as the Charles River, which I boat on nearly every week) combined with smart gov't action. You benefit every day from the work of environmentalists. Take, for example, litter laws, recycling laws, and bottle return policies. Simple steps that make our country far more beautiful--but none of them would have happened without environmentalists. Do you truly love the smell of auto exhaust? Thanks to Bush we smell much more of it than we would have otherwise. 

As for the spotted owl--well, nothing's perfect, and laws designed to help can have unintended consequences. I agree that in that case the sense of balance seemed off. But I think you're exaggerating the consequences--many forces have damaged the lumber industry, not just environmentalism.

SUVs--are dangerous, period, because they are built on old-fashioned, cheap "ladder" chassis construction without the crumple zones used in unibody construction, because their high centers of gravity make them prone to roll over, and because their enormous bulk makes them ungainly during an accident and gives them long stopping distances. Careful analyses have shown that nimble cars avoid accidents that SUVs can't. That's why my small car, the VW Jetta, has a safety record twice as good as the Ford Explorer's. And I get 43 mpg running it on biodiesel. The executives who created the SUV are on record as being puzzled by the vehicles' unbelievably popularity, given their many drawbacks. But they're the most profitable vehicles in history, so the car makers keep churning them out. (See the superb article on this subject by science writer Malcolm Gladwell, which you can find on his website.)

Mariner.


----------



## CSM (Dec 1, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> environmental policy was reported in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. The banning of CFC's, the Journal said, has been the most successful single global environmental action yet, protecting the ozone layer that keeps us all from being fried by the sun's UV-range output. The second most-damaging chemicals to the ozone layer also were placed under an agreement, which the U.S. signed on to, that would have reduced them to 35% this year. Bush is requesting an exemption for certain industries in the U.S., even though the technology to accomplish the task (soil aeration and decontamination) that these chemicals do is readily at hand (cover the ground with black plastic). With the whole globe agreeing, why buck the trend? Why punish farmers who are choosing the more environmentally sound methods by giving exemptions to certain (campaign contributor) farmers who don't care?
> 
> The name of the U.S. president who signed the initial treaty: Ronald Reagan.
> 
> ...



 KKKEEEEEEERAAAAAPPPPP!!! Most of our forest and wildlife destroyed, unimaginable poverty, shoddy cars that use untold quantities of valuable resources, a callous disregard for the unfortunate masses, and many many other issues (which I am sure you will be glad to list for us) should be driving us to the borders and dropping to our knees and begging the world's forgiveness! The rest of the world MUST be right in that we here in the US are subhuman and should be brought under the beneficent rule of some enlightened country like Syria or Jordan.


----------



## Eightball (Dec 1, 2004)

CSM said:
			
		

> KKKEEEEEEERAAAAAPPPPP!!! Most of our forest and wildlife destroyed, unimaginable poverty, shoddy cars that use untold quantities of valuable resources, a callous disregard for the unfortunate masses, and many many other issues (which I am sure you will be glad to list for us) should be driving us to the borders and dropping to our knees and begging the world's forgiveness! The rest of the world MUST be right in that we here in the US are subhuman and should be brought under the beneficent rule of some enlightened country like Syria or Jordan.



We are so bad, bad, bad, bad.........the world is so good, good, good, good.

Europeans and other non-Americans are sooooo enlightened, we are so unenlightened.

The arrogance of these people..........never ends.

Our country(U.S.) has some of the most stringent environmental protection laws.........

Lake Erie that was once a cesspool, and was believed to be a hopelessly polluted, and would take a minimum of 50 years to become clean if pollutants were totally stopped from entering it, has miraculously become quite clean in a much shorter time-span than enviro-wackos claimed.

Air quality has improved in the U.S.   That's a fact!

Has air quality improved in Russia and China......Yes the big Kyoto signing, industrial powers..................NO!  

Even now the Europeans have finally started to get their act together and are making cleaner running cars.  The U.S. has led the world in pollution technology for auto exhaust emissions well before Europe or Asia.

The Bush administration realizes that industry cannot retool, and make changes in the auto industry at the rate/speed that most extremist environmentalist organizations would desire without financially crippling the U.S. economy.  He is trying to use a balanced approach that allows industry time to make changes to their technology, and time to get these improved products to the consumer.  Hybrid Auto technology can't be rushed, or any alternative fuel technology for autos/trucks needs research.  

It's one thing to have "bright" ideas, and another to implement these new ideas.  It takes $$$$$$$!  If you compare the exhaust emissions levels, of U.S. 2005 vehicles to even vehicles built 10 years ago, the difference in emissions levels are astounding!  

We do need organizations and people committed to the concerns of our environment, but we still must implement changes at a rate or time schedule that allows our economy to adjust to these new products, and their costs to the producers.  Environmentalists must realize that their way or no way will not reap anything, but create distrust.

Regards, Eightballsidepocket


----------



## Mariner (Dec 6, 2004)

(CSM and 8ball) just love paying to clean up Superfund sites which your beloved money-making industries left for the taxpayer when they went belly-up? You're delighted that you can't eat half the fish you catch? 

C'mon, how about a sense of balance? I can agree that environmentalists sometimes make overheated arguments, or exaggerate the facts, but their basic point if a very good one: if ecosystems had a vote, they'd vote humans off the planet. Since plants and animals can't vote, they need advocates. Beyond that, we're animals too--primates--and utterly dependent on the ecosystem ourselves. Preserving it and protecting it is in our own best interest.

You both miss the notion that changing small things can have outsized consequences--we can make small improvements that vastly clean the earth and benefit its other inhabitants. Small examples:

1. As CSM pointed out, cars have become much more gas efficient--but their efficiency has been almost wiped out in overall terms by the ridiculous loophole called the SUV. A simple change in the law, to require SUVs to meet the same fleet economy standards, would accelerate the development of cleaner engines and hybrids.

2. Scientific American recognized a California coal energy producer as an outstanding business leader--his company burns coal so carefully, extracting every possible BTU, that it's the most efficient in the country. If other producers followed his tack, which has not prevented him from making money and growing his business--the air here in New England would be much cleaner, and our lakes less acidified. What's wrong with advocating that coal be burned as cleanly as possible, even if it cuts profits a tad? Why is protecting a power plant's bottom line more important than the quality of the lake I want to fish in?

3. There is a growing sustainable development model which looks at ecosystems' and humans' specific needs. If you can connect a series of small preserves together with corridors, you might maintain a species that would otherwise die out or inbreed. What's wrong with that? A little attention, a little zoning, and you get to coexist with an animal rather than wipe it off the earth. Or take a look at creative companies like Sambazon, started by a bunch of surfers who took a trip to Brazil, and discovered a great berry there--that was being burned out as the farmers burned the rainforest. By hiring farmers to harvest berries they saved rainforest and the farmers have a livelihood. What's wrong with that?

I could give dozens and dozens of examples of ways to incorporate environmental thinking into capitalism. What it all comes down to, though, is that capitalism by itself is destructive to the environment. Without controls, a herd of 60,000,000 bison gets reduced to 4,000. Without controls, there wouldn't be a redwood in California. Without controls, we'd have Superfund sites in every town. Sure it costs money and slows some businesses to have to follow environmental laws. But what's money for, if not to preserve our health and the beauty of our world?--and some businesses benefit as well. I think we should be aiming to be world leader at environmentally friendly products, instead of world's leading per capita polluter. 

Mariner.


----------



## Said1 (Dec 6, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> Or take a look at creative companies like Sambazon, started by a bunch of surfers who took a trip to Brazil, and discovered a great berry there--that was being burned out as the farmers burned the rainforest. By hiring farmers to harvest berries they saved rainforest and the farmers have a livelihood. What's wrong with that?



There is nothing wrong with that, although it is up to the Brazilian government to implement and find ways to preserve their rainforest, not American surfers. The problem is, many governments in developing nations act as though they are helpless to stop the destruction of their natural environments, when this isn't the case at all. Mexico's coastal tourist regions are classic examples of government negligence and really bad planning, creating a total dependency on one industry in some cases.


----------



## CSM (Dec 6, 2004)

Mariner said:
			
		

> (CSM and 8ball) just love paying to clean up Superfund sites which your beloved money-making industries left for the taxpayer when they went belly-up? You're delighted that you can't eat half the fish you catch?
> 
> C'mon, how about a sense of balance? I can agree that environmentalists sometimes make overheated arguments, or exaggerate the facts, but their basic point if a very good one: if ecosystems had a vote, they'd vote humans off the planet. Since plants and animals can't vote, they need advocates. Beyond that, we're animals too--primates--and utterly dependent on the ecosystem ourselves. Preserving it and protecting it is in our own best interest.
> 
> ...


 You make a lot of good points. What bothers me most is illustrated by your statement:
I can agree that environmentalists sometimes make overheated arguments, or exaggerate the facts, but their basic point if a very good one: if ecosystems had a vote, they'd vote humans off the planet. Since plants and animals can't vote, they need advocates.  
Those advocates often appear to me that they are indeed trying to vote humans off the planet. I reject the notion that the spotted owl has any more rights than a human being. I reject the notion that the US is soley responsible for all the environmental ills on the planet. Should large corporations be held responsible for the environmental messes they make? Absolutely! Should everyone drive an environmentally friendly vehicle? Absolutely. But you know as well as I do that if the consumer did not buy SUVs then manufacturers would not make  them. I know that in a lot of cases it is a matter of economic necessity. People buy older, less environmentally friendly cars because they are cheaper. If I have a choice between buying a small hybrid at $40k and a gas gussling SUV at $15k, guess which one I am FORCED to buy?

I am not against reasonable environmental laws or controls and regulations in general. I am against such things when the tree huggers suggest that unless we all went back to living in caves and walked everywhere and ate nuts and berries that we as a species should be done away with. Environmental extremism is just as obnoxious to me as social or religious extremism can be.


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 6, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with that, although it is up to the Brazilian government to implement and find ways to preserve their rainforest, not American surfers. The problem is, many governments in developing nations act as though they are helpless to stop the destruction of their natural environments, when this isn't the case at all. Mexico's coastal tourist regions are classic examples of government negligence and really bad planning, creating a total dependency on one industry in some cases.


Also classic examples of governmental corruption at it's finest !!


----------



## Said1 (Dec 6, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Also classic examples of governmental corruption at it's finest !!



Very True. Fox's latest scam is promoting high tech industry in these areas. Great idea, only it marginalizes the majority of unskilled Mexican workers right off the friggen page. Smooth move exlax.


----------



## Mariner (Dec 7, 2004)

I agree re: humans are important too, and that environmentalists have in the past forgotten to take people into account sometimes. The new breed of environmentalists, however, are much more careful about this. 

As for Brazil--I'm sure they were happy to have Sambazon start up its company. I drink their Acai berry juice every morning, along with shade-grown coffee (another very simple thing that has an outsized effect--the shade trees permit the coffee fields to serve a double purpose as habitat for migratory birds.) I disagree that it's other countries' responsibility alone to take care of their environment. The Brazilian rain forest is crucial in its role in climate control, pollution control, and a source of new medicines for the Americas as a whole--we have a great stake in it. Many U.S. banks have chosen to write off loans to countries that would agree to protect rain forest. This is smart on our part.

Mariner.


----------



## TheEnemyWithin (Dec 8, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Okay... the following article does a pretty complete job:




Who cares what those idiotic eco-freak putzes think?? To hell with the oh-so-holy Environment...we're fighting a war with Islam-O-Facists!!!!!!   




Yeah, I _like_ Savage.


----------

