Greens keep singing the blues, Whitmans parting comments

[flavio]

Originally posted by: etech

When I'm tired I emulate the liberals on this board.

That's a load of crap. You just emulated every Bush apologist's standard programming....

When it becomes obvious his administration has done something wrong you simply point at someone else that has done something wrong. It's the old "but Clinton got a blowjob" method of debate which only serves to make you look like a fool.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Where in my post did I talk about Bush? Who is blinded? Who seems to be hell bent on trying to taint a politician?

Hint: nowhere, , and

Yep, my apologies. In my haste to get to bed, I lumped you in with a couple of other people in the thread. My remarks were more directed at them.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe there are things I dislike about the man? Ever read my posts about Gov't spending? Opps I guess I must be a tree hugging, pot smoking communist hippie

Hey man, welcome to the club. It's finally starting to get crowded.

Yes, I know you are sometimes critical of Bush. Not enough in my opinion (of course), but you have shown you are capable of thinking for yourself. I can't say that about some of the Bush worshippers. They unconditionally support anything he does and can be counted on to launch personal attacks at anyone who questions them.

Bow - the "right" isn't out to get you

Oh yes it is. They told you to say that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: etech
Interesting code phase that Daschle used. It's funny, it sounds a lot like the one that you said that Pres. Bush used. I will agree with one statement that you made- "I'm not an expert on the environment". That's pretty obvious.

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Buahahaha I don't blame him though - he better start doing something for SD besides pumping gas. From the sounds of it - he's going to have a hard time being re-elected if the GOP can muster even a halfway decent candidate to oppose him.

CkG

You guys are so blinded by your unquestioning support for Bush-lite that you can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with him on its merits. You assume that anyone who suggests Bush has even a tiny flaw must be a Bush-hater and an ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, hippie, communist, blah, blah, blah (too lazy to go back and look for the thread where someone unleashed a spew just like that).

Guys, I'm usually disgusted by most things most politicians do. The higher they are, the more disgusting they are. Most of the D.C. bunch are there because they lust for power and they've agreed to be a tool for the highest bidders. Very few of them show any significant integrity. Actual leadership is like Bigfoot; lots of people claim to have seen it, but there's rarely any evidence to support it. Statesmanship is truly mythical, like unicorns. No one even claims to have seen it in centuries.

They all support bigger government because, in their hearts, they all believe government is the solution rather than the problem. They just differ on which parts of government need to be bigger. Voters still have enough sway that on really high-profile issues, politicians can sometimes be swayed to do the right thing in spite of their baser instincts. More often the interests of a major lobbyist happen to coincide with the public interest, so good things happen because of that. In general, however, whenever lobbyist interests conflict with the public interest, you're a fool to bet on the public regardless of political affiliation.

I can (and have) give(n) a long diatribe on all the things I find appalling about Bush-lite. Don't think for a moment that this means I'm a big fan of the Democrats.

So in the past 3 years, what has bush done bad for environment and what has he done good?

Simple question.

I hear crickets......

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Where in my post did I talk about Bush? Who is blinded? Who seems to be hell bent on trying to taint a politician?

Hint: nowhere, , and

Yep, my apologies. In my haste to get to bed, I lumped you in with a couple of other people in the thread. My remarks were more directed at them.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe there are things I dislike about the man? Ever read my posts about Gov't spending? Opps I guess I must be a tree hugging, pot smoking communist hippie

Hey man, welcome to the club. It's finally starting to get crowded.

Yes, I know you are sometimes critical of Bush. Not enough in my opinion (of course), but you have shown you are capable of thinking for yourself. I can't say that about some of the Bush worshippers. They unconditionally support anything he does and can be counted on to launch personal attacks at anyone who questions them.

Bow - the "right" isn't out to get you

Oh yes it is. They told you to say that.

Well those comments must have been directed at me. I am not blinded by bush either. I have been critical of Bush when it is deserved.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So far the president has passed legislation to reduce off road deisel pollution.

And when must equipment come into compliance? Considering lifecycles that are measured in decades plenty of tractors and trucks will continue to spew well after Bush is pushing up daisies.

Better forest management to help prevernt large forest fires.

The forests need management b/c people have chosen to build homes and artificial recreation throughout the wilderness. The best way to reduce fire risk while maintaining the forest is not commercial logging (which will spend very little time clearing underbrush which is the primary fuel). Commercial loggers want massive hardwoods NOT deadwood . . . but what do you think burns better?

Proposed stricter pollution standard( a similar planned proposed by a democrat is like by environmentalists)

A man proposes after a two year courtship . . . a man propositions a prostitute . . . according to the environmentalists can you figure out which version applies to Bush.

Increased cafe standards.

Mandating a yearly CAFE increase of 1mpg or removing exemptions for light trucks/SUV is an achievement. The intervention advocated by Bush could be achieved by people removing those lame flapping flags from their cars.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: etech
Interesting code phase that Daschle used. It's funny, it sounds a lot like the one that you said that Pres. Bush used. I will agree with one statement that you made- "I'm not an expert on the environment". That's pretty obvious.

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Buahahaha I don't blame him though - he better start doing something for SD besides pumping gas. From the sounds of it - he's going to have a hard time being re-elected if the GOP can muster even a halfway decent candidate to oppose him.

CkG

You guys are so blinded by your unquestioning support for Bush-lite that you can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with him on its merits. You assume that anyone who suggests Bush has even a tiny flaw must be a Bush-hater and an ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, hippie, communist, blah, blah, blah (too lazy to go back and look for the thread where someone unleashed a spew just like that).

Guys, I'm usually disgusted by most things most politicians do. The higher they are, the more disgusting they are. Most of the D.C. bunch are there because they lust for power and they've agreed to be a tool for the highest bidders. Very few of them show any significant integrity. Actual leadership is like Bigfoot; lots of people claim to have seen it, but there's rarely any evidence to support it. Statesmanship is truly mythical, like unicorns. No one even claims to have seen it in centuries.

They all support bigger government because, in their hearts, they all believe government is the solution rather than the problem. They just differ on which parts of government need to be bigger. Voters still have enough sway that on really high-profile issues, politicians can sometimes be swayed to do the right thing in spite of their baser instincts. More often the interests of a major lobbyist happen to coincide with the public interest, so good things happen because of that. In general, however, whenever lobbyist interests conflict with the public interest, you're a fool to bet on the public regardless of political affiliation.

I can (and have) give(n) a long diatribe on all the things I find appalling about Bush-lite. Don't think for a moment that this means I'm a big fan of the Democrats.

So in the past 3 years, what has bush done bad for environment and what has he done good?

Simple question.

I hear crickets......

Here's the tally for you.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

So far the president has passed legislation to reduce off road deisel pollution.

And when must equipment come into compliance? Considering lifecycles that are measured in decades plenty of tractors and trucks will continue to spew well after Bush is pushing up daisies.


You are right here, but new equipment will be much better. Your complaint here is that Bush did not do enough. This is not bad legislation.
.

Better forest management to help prevernt large forest fires.

The forests need management b/c people have chosen to build homes and artificial recreation throughout the wilderness. The best way to reduce fire risk while maintaining the forest is not commercial logging (which will spend very little time clearing underbrush which is the primary fuel). Commercial loggers want massive hardwoods NOT deadwood . . . but what do you think burns better?

Dense uncontrolled forest burn better. In dense forests, the dead burn along with live trees.
Yes people live too close the forests, but since we dont allow forest fires to run their course anymore, the forests have become very fuel rich. And when a fire happens, hundreds of thousands of acres of lives trees are taken with the dead fuel.


I do beleive that a moderate solution between industry and enviromentalist is needed here.
A no cut policy is bad if we are going to continue to put out every forest fire and a log everything solution is just as bad. There is middle ground here.

Proposed stricter pollution standard( a similar planned proposed by a democrat is like by environmentalists)

A man proposes after a two year courtship . . . a man propositions a prostitute . . . according to the environmentalists can you figure out which version applies to Bush.

Increased cafe standards.

It is similar yet slight less abitious than a democratic plan, yet the democratic plan is great, and Bush plan is the worst thing that could happen. This once appears to a case of not enough, not bad.


Mandating a yearly CAFE increase of 1mpg or removing exemptions for light trucks/SUV is an achievement. The intervention advocated by Bush could be achieved by people removingthose lame flapping flags from their cars.

Once again, this is a complaint of not enough, not bad. But i guess you would rather cafe standards not be raised at all.


As i have said before, If 1 year after the passage of the clear skies I do not see coal plants making an effort to retrofit I will codemn Bush for the farce of enviromental plan.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: etech
Interesting code phase that Daschle used. It's funny, it sounds a lot like the one that you said that Pres. Bush used. I will agree with one statement that you made- "I'm not an expert on the environment". That's pretty obvious.

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Buahahaha I don't blame him though - he better start doing something for SD besides pumping gas. From the sounds of it - he's going to have a hard time being re-elected if the GOP can muster even a halfway decent candidate to oppose him.

CkG

You guys are so blinded by your unquestioning support for Bush-lite that you can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with him on its merits. You assume that anyone who suggests Bush has even a tiny flaw must be a Bush-hater and an ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, hippie, communist, blah, blah, blah (too lazy to go back and look for the thread where someone unleashed a spew just like that).

Guys, I'm usually disgusted by most things most politicians do. The higher they are, the more disgusting they are. Most of the D.C. bunch are there because they lust for power and they've agreed to be a tool for the highest bidders. Very few of them show any significant integrity. Actual leadership is like Bigfoot; lots of people claim to have seen it, but there's rarely any evidence to support it. Statesmanship is truly mythical, like unicorns. No one even claims to have seen it in centuries.

They all support bigger government because, in their hearts, they all believe government is the solution rather than the problem. They just differ on which parts of government need to be bigger. Voters still have enough sway that on really high-profile issues, politicians can sometimes be swayed to do the right thing in spite of their baser instincts. More often the interests of a major lobbyist happen to coincide with the public interest, so good things happen because of that. In general, however, whenever lobbyist interests conflict with the public interest, you're a fool to bet on the public regardless of political affiliation.

I can (and have) give(n) a long diatribe on all the things I find appalling about Bush-lite. Don't think for a moment that this means I'm a big fan of the Democrats.

So in the past 3 years, what has bush done bad for environment and what has he done good?

Simple question.

I hear crickets......

Here's the tally for you.

There are some interesting articles there, but some the problems mentioned seem to be age old funding problems that spread across various administration. One article blames bush for not updating the EPA cleanwater permit database. Someone how this aging 20 year old system is Bush's fault. I am willing to bet this application was just a big of problem 5 years ago, before Bush ever came to office. I would like to see more numbers on those articles as they only seem to be one side of the story.

 

[LunarRay]

Eliminate the number cars allowed to a state or city to the quantity that can navigate efficiently... at least one per family then the poor can sell their allotted number to rich folks and increase the gas tax 10 fold for second cars.... unless hydrogen powered