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

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


We're not all fundies, mongo.

we believe in a different form of incentivization, dipnard.

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]

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

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

(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]

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]

(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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.