LOL, lets look at these botched forecasts.

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
I presented the forecasts from the moron egghead liberal academia types from the first "earth day" (actually should be called smoking pot, pissing and shitting in a field for a week and thinking that is doing something for the planet day) in 1970. Back then it was about all of those "educated liberals" all saying the earth would be frozen.


Well, in the similar spirit (similar yet 180 degrees exact opposite) lets look at what these morons predicted over the last 20 years....shall we?

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2."By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

3. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us look at some of those other classics from these know it all hippies, who continue to prove to the world (ironically they never prove it to themselves) from the so called "earth day (smoking pot, pissing and shitting in a field for a week thinking I am doing something for the planet day).

1. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

2. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

5. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970


-----------------------------------------------------

Remember, Abraham and his types claim the reason the ship got stuck in the ice and the reason the ice is so thick that even cutter ships got stuck is because of THE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!



Strap ourselves in, cause here comes some more funny ass shit from the board Obamabelievers.

 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Virtually everything you've just posted was put up by someone else not more than a week ago. They were as useless then, as they are now.

It is difficult to tell what you are copying from someone and what you are actually writing. You should clarify that as I don't want to come to the conclusion that you're a raving asshole when it's actually just the author you're quoting. On the other hand...

As to Paul Erhlich et al - you may have been a very young man at the time, but the world responded to what they said. The EPA came into existence as did numerous clean up programs and regulatory schemes. The world has been cleaned up DRAMATICALLY since then. In 1970, the world WAS going to hell in a handbasket.

Nice, though, to know our efforts are appreciated.

ps: you've about set the record for the number of times things have to be repeated to you. I did NOT say that ship was stuck in the ice due to global warming. For perhaps the FIFTH time, that ship got stuck in the ice due to a storm and changing winds. They did not get stuck "because of global warming". However, global warming will warm the southern ocean which will increase evaporation which will increase precipitation which will fall on the Antarctic continent as snow which will then turn to ice. The warming of that ocean is also facilitating the breakup of the ice shelves which is allowing glacial flow ashore to accelerate rapidly.

Look, if you can't quote me accurately, I'd prefer you didn't even try.
 
Last edited:
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
We live in a far better world because of action being taken.

Butt fuckers on the extreme right wish to weaken America.
Who passed the Clean Air Act, right or left?

Who created National Forests, right or left?

Who passed the Antiquities Act, right or left?

Who passed the National Environmental Policy Act, right or left?

Ever hear of the Gerald Ford Cafe? Most likely not, since you get all of your skewed information from communist sources.

That is probably why you never heard of the Montreal Protocol. Tell us, was that from the right or left? First Google it, and pretend like you knew about it, then let us know if it was a right or left idea.

Who established marine preservation to an unprecedented level when he took the Antiquities Act much further than any of his predecessors combined covering an estimated 215 million acres? Was that the right or left? Quick Google it, and pretend like you knew about it.


Keep on thinking pissing, shitting, fucking and getting high in a field for a week is doing something for the planet while holding signs crushing republicans while wearing Che Guerva T shirts.

Now, go do your homework little boy and get back to us about who does more for the actual environment. The right or left.

You know what? Don't get back to me. You are one of those that think increasing ice expanses in the Antarctic proves global warming, while thinning glaciers in other parts of the world also prove global warming.

Why don't you talk to the other pawn of leftist propaganda and talk about how you are always smarter than any knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, white right winger.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,131
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
How pathetic are the panty waist progressives? What the fuck happened to these males? The tuna? The feminists? Being sent to school as kids carrying gay lunch boxes and getting their balls kicked in? Dominant mothers who deballed them? What the fuck happened? This eternal search to find the inner gayness? No wonder our country is so fucked!!


Growing up, I was so proud as an American. Now, 40% of the men are fucking pussies.
 
Last edited:

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Who passed the Clean Air Act, right or left?

Who created National Forests, right or left?

Who passed the Antiquities Act, right or left?

Who passed the National Environmental Policy Act, right or left?
Congress did. In every case. By the way, Teddy Roosevelt would have a heart attack if he saw what his party and his nation has become today.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
How pathetic are the panty waist progressives? What the fuck happened to these males? The tuna? The feminists? Being sent to school as kids carrying gay lunch boxes and getting their balls kicked in? Dominant mothers who deballed them? What the fuck happened? This eternal search to find the inner gayness? No wonder our country is so fucked!!


Growing up, I was so proud as an American. Now, 40% of the men are fucking pussies.
Well, perhaps you should move to Uganda, where manly men execute those gays you love to hate. No doubt, you'd fit right in.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
Who passed the Clean Air Act, right or left?

Who created National Forests, right or left?

Who passed the Antiquities Act, right or left?

Who passed the National Environmental Policy Act, right or left?
Congress did. In every case. By the way, Teddy Roosevelt would have a heart attack if he saw what his party and his nation has become today.
Yeah of course he would have a heart attack. Congress did? You do not think republicans had anything to do with the Clean Air Act of 1972 eh? Nothing to do with the Montreal Protocol eh?

You have any idea about Bush's Blue Water legacy?

Just another one in a long line of brainwashed left wing pieces of communist shit.

Yeah, Teddy probably would have apologized to the middle east and the world for America defending ourselves.

You liberals are so wrong about everything. I mean everything too.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
How pathetic are the panty waist progressives? What the fuck happened to these males? The tuna? The feminists? Being sent to school as kids carrying gay lunch boxes and getting their balls kicked in? Dominant mothers who deballed them? What the fuck happened? This eternal search to find the inner gayness? No wonder our country is so fucked!!


Growing up, I was so proud as an American. Now, 40% of the men are fucking pussies.
Well, perhaps you should move to Uganda, where manly men execute those gays you love to hate. No doubt, you'd fit right in.
********Leftist propaganda ALERT!!!!!!!!***********
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,131
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
How pathetic are the panty waist progressives? What the fuck happened to these males? The tuna? The feminists? Being sent to school as kids carrying gay lunch boxes and getting their balls kicked in? Dominant mothers who deballed them? What the fuck happened? This eternal search to find the inner gayness? No wonder our country is so fucked!!


Growing up, I was so proud as an American. Now, 40% of the men are fucking pussies.
Well, perhaps you should move to Uganda, where manly men execute those gays you love to hate. No doubt, you'd fit right in.

Well, here's a Christopher Hayes fan!!!:eusa_dance::eusa_dance::gay:
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,131
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
How pathetic are the panty waist progressives? What the fuck happened to these males? The tuna? The feminists? Being sent to school as kids carrying gay lunch boxes and getting their balls kicked in? Dominant mothers who deballed them? What the fuck happened? This eternal search to find the inner gayness? No wonder our country is so fucked!!


Growing up, I was so proud as an American. Now, 40% of the men are fucking pussies.
Well, perhaps you should move to Uganda, where manly men execute those gays you love to hate. No doubt, you'd fit right in.
********Leftist propaganda ALERT!!!!!!!!***********


LMAO......indeed........falling all over themselves to embrace gayness = gay. WTF?!
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Who passed the Clean Air Act, right or left?

Who created National Forests, right or left?

Who passed the Antiquities Act, right or left?

Who passed the National Environmental Policy Act, right or left?
Congress did. In every case. By the way, Teddy Roosevelt would have a heart attack if he saw what his party and his nation has become today.
Yeah of course he would have a heart attack. Congress did? You do not think republicans had anything to do with the Clean Air Act of 1972 eh? Nothing to do with the Montreal Protocol eh?

You have any idea about Bush's Blue Water legacy?

Just another one in a long line of brainwashed left wing pieces of communist shit.

Yeah, Teddy probably would have apologized to the middle east and the world for America defending ourselves.

You liberals are so wrong about everything. I mean everything too.
The clean air act was passed by Congress, which at the time was predominantly Democrat. Yes Nixon signed it, to his credit. Bush's blue water legacy? How about his arsenic legacy?

And how, exactly, were we defending ourselves (and from what) when we invaded Iraq?

So because I agree with the clean air act, which was signed into law by Nixon, a diehard Republican, I am a communist? Wow, that logic just takes my breath away. Congratulations, you just won a Darwin award.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
Congress did. In every case. By the way, Teddy Roosevelt would have a heart attack if he saw what his party and his nation has become today.
Yeah of course he would have a heart attack. Congress did? You do not think republicans had anything to do with the Clean Air Act of 1972 eh? Nothing to do with the Montreal Protocol eh?

You have any idea about Bush's Blue Water legacy?

Just another one in a long line of brainwashed left wing pieces of communist shit.

Yeah, Teddy probably would have apologized to the middle east and the world for America defending ourselves.

You liberals are so wrong about everything. I mean everything too.
The clean air act was passed by Congress, which at the time was predominantly Democrat. Yes Nixon signed it, to his credit. Bush's blue water legacy? How about his arsenic legacy?

And how, exactly, were we defending ourselves (and from what) when we invaded Iraq?

So because I agree with the clean air act, which was signed into law by Nixon, a diehard Republican, I am a communist? Wow, that logic just takes my breath away. Congratulations, you just won a Darwin award.
The clean Air Act was signed by fucking Nixon dick head.

Oh here we go about Iraq again.

This moron liberal still thinks Bush lied about WMDs.
-----------------------------------------------------
The liberals and their hypocrisy.

Who lied about the existence of WMDs?


Who propagated the existence of these WMDs before Bush took office?


Who wanted to "invade Baghdad?"


What did UNSCOM say in regards to the violations of Iraq? UNSCOM was an INDEPENDENT UN investigation.

Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS


At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.

Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq's concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in "obliterated" in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq "retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge" after 1991.

Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that "bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated," given the resources available to Iraq's BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq's story.

BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were "guesses." UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

Aircraft drop tanks: Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. UNSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq--a letter thanking the project workers--that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.

Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

Remaining Bacterial Growth Media: UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. The report says that "the amounts that are 'missing' are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq."



IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM

UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997. In addition, the report found:

Extensive CW program: Iraq acknowledged that it carried out a large scale CW program between 1982 and 1990. It claims that more than 50% of its chemical weapons stocks were consumed during the 1980s, and that the majority of its production facilities were destroyed by aerial bombing during the Gulf War.

Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for.

Special Munitions: Iraq claimed that between 1982 and 1988, 100,000 munitions filled with CW agents were consumed or disposed of. UNSCOM found that this number could not be verified.

After the Gulf war, Iraq declared that there remained over 56,000 special munitions which could carry either CW or BW agents (22,000 filled, 34,000 unfilled). These munitions are all accounted for. They were either destroyed or converted for conventional weapons purposes.

Iraq claimed that there were 42,000 special munitions destroyed in the Gulf War. UNSCOM was unable to verify that number, and found that the destruction of 2,000 unfilled munitions remains uncertain, and 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed 29,000 special munitions; UNSCOM found that of these, 100 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.


As usual, the double talking, hypocritical liberals that had no clue the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Clinton (of course they have no idea Clinton awarded at least 4 no-bid contracts to that big bad Halliburton in the 90s, nor do they care that Clinton repealed Glass Steagall Act, which directly led to the deregulated derivatives and also led to the housing bubble) which was one of many big reasons why those democrats voted for the war, and then spoke out against it, and acted as though they were the ones misled.

The democrats are nothing but overt liars. Hypocrites. Their little sheep, like this person here are the the real reasons why we have to endure the eventual absolute collapse of the middle class, along with the country.


Anyone have conclusive evidence on where Syria got their chemical weapons that they have been using? Anyone? Hello?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,246
Reaction score
6,761
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Congress did. In every case. By the way, Teddy Roosevelt would have a heart attack if he saw what his party and his nation has become today.
Yeah of course he would have a heart attack. Congress did? You do not think republicans had anything to do with the Clean Air Act of 1972 eh? Nothing to do with the Montreal Protocol eh?

You have any idea about Bush's Blue Water legacy?

Just another one in a long line of brainwashed left wing pieces of communist shit.

Yeah, Teddy probably would have apologized to the middle east and the world for America defending ourselves.

You liberals are so wrong about everything. I mean everything too.
The clean air act was passed by Congress, which at the time was predominantly Democrat. Yes Nixon signed it, to his credit. Bush's blue water legacy? How about his arsenic legacy?

And how, exactly, were we defending ourselves (and from what) when we invaded Iraq?

So because I agree with the clean air act, which was signed into law by Nixon, a diehard Republican, I am a communist? Wow, that logic just takes my breath away. Congratulations, you just won a Darwin award.

EPA Dept. was proposed and created by Nixon signed by Executive order and approved of by congress. Yet Democrats say they are the ones who created the EPA.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
thenottoobrightowl32 said:
The clean Air Act was signed by fucking Nixon dick head.
Yes, as I said in the previous post:

orogenicman said:
Yes Nixon signed it, to his credit
You're not too bright, are you?
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Yeah of course he would have a heart attack. Congress did? You do not think republicans had anything to do with the Clean Air Act of 1972 eh? Nothing to do with the Montreal Protocol eh?

You have any idea about Bush's Blue Water legacy?

Just another one in a long line of brainwashed left wing pieces of communist shit.

Yeah, Teddy probably would have apologized to the middle east and the world for America defending ourselves.

You liberals are so wrong about everything. I mean everything too.
The clean air act was passed by Congress, which at the time was predominantly Democrat. Yes Nixon signed it, to his credit. Bush's blue water legacy? How about his arsenic legacy?

And how, exactly, were we defending ourselves (and from what) when we invaded Iraq?

So because I agree with the clean air act, which was signed into law by Nixon, a diehard Republican, I am a communist? Wow, that logic just takes my breath away. Congratulations, you just won a Darwin award.

EPA Dept. was proposed and created by Nixon signed by Executive order and approved of by congress. Yet Democrats say they are the ones who created the EPA.
But then, the discussion was not about the EPA, it was about the clean air act. But let me ask you a question. Since you and so many Republicans like to point out (apparently proudly) that a Republican president created the EPA, why are you Republicans so desperate to destroy it?
 
Last edited:
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
You're not too bright, are you?
The president sent dozens of environmental proposals to Congress, including the Clean Air Act of 1970, perhaps one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever passed. He also created two new agencies, the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, to oversee environmental matters.

Of course the democrats then tried to do what democrats always do. While Nixon increased spending on domestic initiatives during his presidency, he consistently stood by the New Federalist principle of fiscal efficiency. Nixon insisted that all environmental proposals meet the cost-benefit standards of the Office of Management and Budget. In 1972, he vetoed the Clean Water Act, which he generally supported, because Congress had boosted its cost to $18 billion. When Congress overrode his veto, he used his presidential powers to impound half of the money. The reason the democrats did that was because they did not want a republican president getting credit for this environmental initiative.

New environmental legislation had to meet the fiscal efficiency standards inherent in his philosophy. The price tag eventually rose to $24 billion, and Nixon, in his veto message to Congress on October 17, 1972, called the CWA legislation “budget-wrecking”:

The pollution of our rivers, lakes and streams degrades the quality of American life. Cleaning up the Nation’s waterways is a matter of urgent concern to me, as evidenced by the nearly tenfold increase in my budget for this purpose during the past four years. I am concerned that we attack pollution in a way that does not ignore other real threats to the quality of life. Legislation which would continue our efforts to raise water quality but which would do so through extreme and needless overspending, does not serve the public interest.

There is a much better way to get this job done. A bill whose laudable intent is outweighed by its unconscionable $24 billion dollar price tag - the bill which has now come to my desk would provide a staggering, budget-wrecking $24 billion dollars. Another provision would raise the federal share of the cost of future facilities from 55 percent to 75 percent - actions which would not in any real sense make our waters any cleaner.

I have nailed my colors to the mast on this issue. The political winds can blow where they may. I am prepared for the possibility that my action on this bill may be overridden.

Ecocentric | Nixon’s Clean Water Act Impoundment Power Play


Why is it that the democrats increased spending to such a level knowing Nixon would veto it? Nixon proposed the Clean Water Act, and in typical form the Democrats tried to take credit from Nixon by forcing him to veto it. They could then say the big bad republican did not want to help the environment.

In typical fashion, the moronic sheep on the left cannot see the political power play. You say I am not too bright?

Trust this, the mucus that lines my lower intestines has more intelligence than you have on your best thinking power day.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Again, since you and so many Republicans like to point out (apparently proudly) that a Republican president created the EPA, why are you Republicans so desperate to destroy it?
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
9,065
Points
1,265
Again, since you and so many Republicans like to point out (apparently proudly) that a Republican president created the EPA, why are you Republicans so desperate to destroy it?
Cause it has become a big government bureaucratic disaster. The US government is broke. Even if we did like what the EPA stood for, and even if we believed that what they were doing actually benefited us in someway, we still can't afford to pay for them. It's too costly. Right now, we can't even pay for the entitlement programs that do function in a way that provides some modicum of benefit to US citizens (SS). So the EPA is, at the end of the day, an expendable government body because we can't afford it.

The EPA is run by a bunch of liberal-progressives who believe in a leftist, statist, agenda. If the EPA was an impartial body, or an apolitical entity, then maybe I could entertain a hypothetical argument for its existence, but as we all know, it's not. The EPA, like NPR, is filled with liberal-progressives and radical environmentalists who believe plants and animals have civil rights on par with humans.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top