• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GWB doesn't like the environment?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< Do not...and btw...my dad can beat up your dad >>



Sounds to me like you've run out of liberal-regurgatation material and I've owned your commie ass....
 
SpongeBob

i can't wait till that green party member cuts the military spending by 50% or more like they keep preaching
that won't hurt us any

Hey, it'll hurt me more than you. I work for the dept. of defense!
 


<< I can't wait for the day when we have Green Party president, or at least someone who truly cares about the environment. Clinton was just trying to look good, I highly suspect his sincerity. >>





<< i can't wait till that green party member cuts the military spending by 50% or more like they keep preaching >>



Green party....what a joke. Please go back to the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, or whatever commie mecca you come from.
 
ok...pollution is bad right? Please tell me your red neck ass understands that. the Solution to ALL externality problems is gaurenteed property rights. therefore if all countries establish Individual Transferable Quotas (preferably set up by some world body) pollution will be minimized...and as we've established pollution is bad....so low pollution is good.
 
Green party....what a joke. Please go back to the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, or whatever commie mecca you come from.

Because I care about the environment you assume I am communist??? That's some logic you got there.
 


<< ok...pollution is bad right? Please tell me your red neck ass understands that. the Solution to ALL externality problems is gaurenteed property rights. therefore if all countries establish Individual Transferable Quotas (preferably set up by some world body) pollution will be minimized...and as we've established pollution is bad....so low pollution is good. >>



Yes it is bad. But not nearly as bad as you all say. Cutting polution is DEFINITELY not worth killing the economy. If it must be done soon, then there are other ways for each country to handle it themselves, economic incentives perhaps....or whatever. The ones who don't have the motivation to do it themselves wouldnt have abided by the Kyoto treaty anyway.
 


<< Because I care about the environment you assume I am communist??? That's some logic you got there. >>



Just go back to watching Larry King Live....
 


<< ok...pollution is bad right? Please tell me your red neck ass understands that. the Solution to ALL externality problems is gaurenteed property rights. therefore if all countries establish Individual Transferable Quotas (preferably set up by some world body) pollution will be minimized...and as we've established pollution is bad....so low pollution is good. >>



All I can say is "WoW"! If that wasn't read from somewhere else, I would say you are the dumbist man alive.

Slap your teacher for me.
 


<< who's the communist...you want governent fvcking subsidies...why not just have the govt run all industy...wtf.... >>



Where the hell did u get that from? I mentioned nothing of the sort
 


<< All I can say is "WoW"! If that wasn't read from somewhere else, I would say you are the dumbist man alive.

Slap your teacher for me. >>



That was pretty funny.....LOL
 
ok... how does that hurt the environment?

most national parks already have roads in them. repaving and maybe adding more isn't going to hurt any more than the existing roads already do

snow mobiles should be allowed in national parks. in most national parks, there are groomed trails for snowmobiles, which 95% of the snowmobiles use. I fail to see how snowmobiles hurt the environment

besides, most national parks have large area's set aside that motorized vehicles are not allowed in

I see... so mining companies should have to BUY the public land then right? that make you happy? Or maybe they can just pay the gov't rent for it, and then when they are done, clean it back up, and its still public property.... what a concept eh?

can't say I know a lot about the energy standards of air conditioners... but i don't see how air conditioners alone will hurt the environment all that much

grizzly bears aren't in the northwest for a reason... they were either killed or run out... either way, why should the gov't try to force them back into an environment that they couldn't survive in before? Thats like when they but the wolves back in Yellowstone and then were arresting ranchers when they were shooting them because they were taking out their livestock. Well duh, I have a few hundred grand in livestock, I am DAMN sure not going to let a damn wolf take them out.
 


<<

<< ok...pollution is bad right? Please tell me your red neck ass understands that. the Solution to ALL externality problems is gaurenteed property rights. therefore if all countries establish Individual Transferable Quotas (preferably set up by some world body) pollution will be minimized...and as we've established pollution is bad....so low pollution is good. >>



All I can say is "WoW"! If that wasn't read from somewhere else, I would say you are the dumbist man alive.

Slap your teacher for me. >>



you've got to be kidding me...that's the basis of any Public Goods or Enviromental Ecnomics course...
 
I dont even care about this debate whatsoever, but Shadowhunter, you are a complete asshole to people over trivial things. If you dont agree with them, agree to disagree or something. Its sickening to see this ravenous attack on members with different opinions than your own.
 


<< I dont even care about this debate whatsoever, but Shadowhunter, you are a complete asshole to people over trivial things. If you dont agree with them, agree to disagree or something. Its sickening to see this ravenous attack on members with different opinions than your own. >>



Thanks. 🙂

I'm in just a particularly bad mood tonite....
 


<< ok... how does that hurt the environment?

snow mobiles should be allowed in national parks. in most national parks, there are groomed trails for snowmobiles, which 95% of the snowmobiles use. I fail to see how snowmobiles hurt the environment. >>



You would have to have 1 man carry 12 more on his back to equal the per square in. pressure that a snowmobile would make on the friggin' snow.

Maybe a law you HAVE to ride a snowmobile while in a park?

tgillitzr is right. They should outlaw such things as horses.


 


<<

<< These include moves to allow road-building in national forests, reverse the phaseout of snowmobiles in national parks, make it easier for mining companies to dig for gold, copper and zinc on public lands, ease energy-saving standards for air-conditioners, bar the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the Northwest and, environmentalists say, make it easier for developers to eliminate wetlands. >>

 >>



Not one of these bother me one bit. Especially the snowmobiles. What a stupid ban that was.

As for eleminating wetlands, hell, most of those rules applied to man made wetlands in the first place. The government has NO RIGHT restricting my ability to build on land I own without BUYING it from me first.
 
Bush is pro-business and only mildly concerned about the environment. The reversals on wetland protection, air conditioner efficiency standards, and grizzly reintroduction have got me a bit miffed, but I don't expect to agree with everything Bush does. I'd rather have seen these left alone, but they aren't exactly 'catastrophic' policy reversals, either.
 


<<

<< ok... how does that hurt the environment?

snow mobiles should be allowed in national parks. in most national parks, there are groomed trails for snowmobiles, which 95% of the snowmobiles use. I fail to see how snowmobiles hurt the environment. >>



You would have to have 1 man carry 12 more on his back to equal the per square in. pressure that a snowmobile would make on the friggin' snow.

Maybe a law you HAVE to ride a snowmobile while in a park?

tgillitzr is right. They should outlaw such things as horses. >>




Ok... i don't quite follow

Snow comes and goes, so even if there is "pressure" put on the snow, WTF does it matter? Oh no, we put PRESSURE on the snow?????

Or are you being a smart @ss?
 


<<

<<

<< ok... how does that hurt the environment?

snow mobiles should be allowed in national parks. in most national parks, there are groomed trails for snowmobiles, which 95% of the snowmobiles use. I fail to see how snowmobiles hurt the environment. >>



You would have to have 1 man carry 12 more on his back to equal the per square in. pressure that a snowmobile would make on the friggin' snow.

Maybe a law you HAVE to ride a snowmobile while in a park?

tgillitzr is right. They should outlaw such things as horses. >>




Ok... i don't quite follow

Snow comes and goes, so even if there is "pressure" put on the snow, WTF does it matter? Oh no, we put PRESSURE on the snow?????

Or are you being a smart @ss? >>



Just being a smart ass. 🙂
 
Obviously we can't just go willy nilly and ignore the environment, taking away all the emissions laws, but in that same token, we can't out law all coal, oil, and gas use in the U.S. What we need is moderation, equilibrium if you will. Nothing will get passed in a congress that is almost split if it is too 'right' or 'left'. Also, as many of you have noticed, the environment isn't the biggest issue on politician?s minds lately. So come a year or two, we can argue about missile defense and environment. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top