most "Environmental groups" are nothing more than thinly disguised political extremist clubs..
the environment is VERY low on their list of real priorities..
SirKristoff is a poopiehead
I agree with you 100%. I don't really like democrats or republicans. I pretty much hate all politicians. I don't cloud my brain with either parties crap.
I just can't live with myself if I vote for the person that has already screwed up everything he has tried to achieve. That's my opinion so you don't have to try and disguise a way to say I'm lying. You want facts, here are some facts for you. I'm doing way worse financially today then I was four years ago. It's harder for me to find a job. This is also true for most of the people I know. I didn't get the wonderful tax rebate that Gw said every tax payer was going to get. Those are facts nobody can deny.
Here are some opinions. I don't think Gw has any concern about the American people. He don't care if people suffer from disease. If one of his daughters and a terminal disease that could be cured with stem cell research, I bet he'd allow unlimited stem cell research. He don't care if people can afford to pay for the medicine that keeps them alive. He don't care that almost 1500 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis died just so he could get the man that made an attempt on his daddy's life. I'm sorry but I can't vote for a man like that.
I'll say this, I have never heard of anybody say that Bush has ever done anything positive for the environment. I have only heard negative things. I won't discount the bills and laws you mentioned but I can't say that what you said is the truth either. I'll check into it and see before I make any comments about it.
And you wonder why I am voting libertarian...
Whats it to ya?
libertarians are against seat-belt regulations...
And it should be your choice as to whether or not you want to protect your life or not right? I mean it is your choice to wear a helmet/pads when riding bikes rollerblading etc.
Originally Posted by [b
how do you know that?
Originally Posted by [b
kerry hasnt said one thing about what he is going to do.
he just says hes going to do something about it, but doesnt say what.
and im pretty certain he didnt say "no more destroying wetlands, I'm gonna prevent the wetlands from disappearing"
wetlands and other environmental issues take up about 0.9% of the things the president will even think about.
then again i cant tell if you are being sarcastic?
at the end it seems like you are.. *sigh* its too late to think
Here's one for you. I'm from Nevada so I have personal experience in this regard.
Bush is for it, and also rushed approval through without having any sound science, and some pretty clear environmental safety dodges. I mean....for poops sake, the darn thing is on various fault lines that see low, but frequent tremors. And they want to store nuke waste there?
Kerry is against it.
For all the political babble here, no one here can debate that Kerry wins out over Bush on that one.
here's why you should vote for Bush:
- there's been more jobs lost in the past four years than in any 4 years since the great depression
- health care costs have gone up at least 10% each year over the past four years, while 5 million people lost their coverage
- recently, Bush signed into law massive new loopholes that reward firms for shipping jobs overseas
-Cheney regularly repeats alarming threats that if we elect Kerry, we will suffer another horrendous attack. How does he know? Either he's just making up threats to scare us, or else he's relying on friends he made among the terrorists while he was helping Iraq, Iran and Libya build up power when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton
-Bush ran in 2000 openly promising to divert money from Social Security into the stock market and other investments. As Bush's failed economic policies crashed the stock market, Bush muted these positions, but he's never repudiated them. While Bush's privatization would pump money into the pockets of his pals, the elite equities traders, it would drain $trillions from the Social Security trust fund and cost taxpayers an equal amount to administer
-In a speech at St. Charles, MO on November 2, 2000, Bush said he opposes "the federal government controlling the Social Security like it's some kind of federal program. We understand differently though. You see, it's your money not the government's money." But Social Security is a federal program. Bush wants to change that, because he wants to give our money to his friends once again, and there's nothing left in the coffers. Bottom line: Bush is planning to raid Social Security because he fundamentally opposes the program, and thinks his friends deserve our money more than we do.
-Bush Administration failures make our National Guard and Reserve personnel serve double and triple tours for which they're not trained or prepared - or fairly compensated. Bush even sought to slash their combat pay! As Bush abuses and misuses our troops, new enlistments and re-enlistments decline. Meanwhile, Bush's policies place greater demands on our men and women in uniform, spreading them ever thinner
-The record shows with the millions of jobs lost under Bush's mismanagement, an additional five million of us lost health care as well. Bush's policies lost millions of private sector jobs, not made up for by Bush's massive increase in government spending. Bush hasn't done anything to help Americans get access health care, and his so-called Medicare reform puts $billions in the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations and has not helped a single senior afford a single bottle of medicine.
-Bush's audacious failures, misjudgments and mistakes undermine American strength from Iraq to your own neighborhood. During the heat of the campaign, Bush refuses to address real issues and rushes to blow up the deficit with $billions in gifts to his special interest cronies. Bush is paying them to keep exporting our jobs and charging the bill to us and our kids and grandkids. Bush didn't even bother to wait until after the voting to raid our Treasury one more time.
-After the election, what will Bush do? Unless we send him home as a loser, we have no idea because Bush refuses to say. His record is pretty clear, however. He's always taken the easy way, and done as little work as possible, and sided with the powerful elite over the middle class. Rather than facing facts, he's clung to denial. Instead of making the tough decisions needed to rally our allies, protect our people from attack and ill health, and reinvigorate the economy Bush would rather lie and mock John Kerry.
-Bush blames trial lawyers for his administrations' failure to heed warnings about flu shot shortages dating back years. Meanwhile, Bush refuses to sign a bill which would protect vaccine manufacturers from financial loss in lawsuits. Most importantly, Bush and his top officials ignored dire warnings leading up to 9/11. They laughed off former-Clinton, Bush and Reagan officials like Samuel Berger, Richard Clarke and others who told them terrorism and Osama bin Laden would dominate their security concerns.
-The Bush "national defense team" keeps ignoring threats posed by North Korea and Iran. They've done next to nothing to buy up loose nukes from the former Soviet Union which pose an unfathomably deadly threat. They've left our ports, railways, power grid, and other prime targets largely unprotected. They've spent all their energy trying to defend loopholes for multinationals that send our jobs overseas than defending legitimate US interests. They have no answers for any of these failures, so they rely on the "politics of fear" while deceitfully, hypocritically blaming Kerry.
-A vote for Bush is a vote for reckless, failed, fatal foreign policy which may require a draft. A vote for Bush is a vote to ignore Osama bin Laden, loose nukes, vulnerable targets, and threats from North Korea and Iran. A vote for Bush is a vote for more sky-rocketing health costs, run-away gas prices, more pollution, and exporting jobs. More Bush means more poverty, more rancor and division as he advocates tampering with the Constitution
Yeah, Bush's environmental record is pretty good:
Originally Posted by [b
Regarding brownfields legislation of 2002: the law provides funding to states, but sets no federal standards for public health and environmental protection or deed restrictions on sites where toxins may linger after cleanup is complete.
Regarding the Farm Bill: Only $9 billion of the new spending will address conservation, with the rest funding environmentally damaging policies and subsidizing polluting corporate factory farms. The proposed FY 2005 federal budget also would significantly slash funding for farmer and landowner conservation activities.
The administration has proposed slashing federal funding for important cooperative conservation programs including state and tribal wildlife grants. Furthermore, the FY 2005 budget proposes cutting overall environmental funding by $1.9 billion (compared to FY 2004).
Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative": Would allow more pollution than existing law permits and does nothing to curb carbon dioxide pollution, the main cause of global warming.
The EPA's air pollution plan is weaker than the Clean Air Act, and its mercury proposal would allow seven times as much this dangerous toxin to collect in our lakes and streams. While the new proposal to clean up heavy-duty diesels is commendable, it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the administration's abysmal record on air pollution. Most notably, the White House avoids discussing its rollback of the Clean Air Act's "New Source Review" program, which allows some of the dirtiest power plants in the country to emit more pollution for a longer period of time than what current law, fully enforced, would allow.
Bush's raising of fuel economy standards for SUV's, pickups, etc.: This 1.5 miles-per-gallon increase over five years is a drop in the bucket toward making America less dependent on foreign oil -- and even these savings will be largely wiped out by the "dual fuel" loophole that allows the auto industry to skirt efficiency standards. We have the technology now to make all vehicles go farther on a gas of gasoline, but incremental fuel economy increases are not going to get the technology on the market. Incidentally, one year after this paltry increase was announced, the overall American vehicle fleet hit a 22-year low in average fuel economy.
Climate Change Research: Although the administration increased one climate science program by $70 million (or 42 percent), it cut the U.S. Global Change Research Program by $109 million, for a $40 million net reduction in climate science research, according to OMB's May 2004 "Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress." In any case, the realities of global warming already have been established, most recently by a National Academy of Science study. We know enough to act -- and real action is needed -- but the White House would rather stall.
Marine Ecosystems: Working with NOAA and state and local governments, the National Park Service has begun work on restoring marine ecosystems. In the face of collapsing ocean ecosystems, protecting and restoring marine reserves -- while a positive step -- falls far short of the policies needed to address the concerns raised by the Pew and U.S. commissions.
Wetlands: Three million new wetland acres is a laudable goal, but what about the estimated 20 million acres of wetlands (and countless waterways nationwide) threatened by a January 2003 directive to federal agencies easing Clean Water Act protection? Although the administration, under pressure from conservation groups, agreed to end its rulemaking process for lifting Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands, its accompanying directive remains in effect.
Great Lakes: The Great Lakes region is a net loser under the FY 2005 budget proposal. The budget calls for an overall cut of nearly $500 million for sewage system upgrades nationwide (under the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund), and includes a nearly $240 million (more than 40 percent) decrease in clean water funding for the nine Great Lakes states. (NRDC's funding analysis is available upon request.) In addition, White House air pollution policies ignore mercury pollution from power plants, which has prompted fish consumption warnings in the Great Lakes region.
National Forests: A Federal Register notice indicates that the Bush Administration intends to replace the Roadless Area Conservation Rule with a state petition process that essentially eliminates federal protections from logging and mining in millions of acres of national forests – making these roadless areas much more vulnerable to road building and commercial logging.
The U.S. Forest Service approved lead-mining exploration in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest. The Doe Run Company plans to drill up to 232 holes amid the tree-covered hills and winding streams of the Ozarks. Critics worry that the porous limestone in southeastern Missouri could lead to massive water pollution. The move is the latest from a pro-development administration that had already revised the rules that governed mining on public lands to make the process easier for industry. At the same time, the administration has been issuing oil and gas leases on public lands in the Rockies at a record pace.
Mercury: When approximately 600,000 newborn children are born each year with enough mercury in their blood to cause risk of lowered intelligence and learning problems, it’s time to take action. But instead, the Bush administration proposed weakening public health protections by announcing so-called "Utility Mercury Reductions" that would actually allow polluters to avoid cleaning up mercury pollution.
Aresenic: President Bush canceled a health regulation that would have reduced allowable levels of arsenic in U.S. drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Bush takes arsenic poisoning so
lightly, but it may have something to do with his ties to the
coal industry. Burning coal is a major source of arsenic
contamination. Many landfills contain arsenic-laden ash produced by coal-burning power plants. Arsenic is likely to leak out of these landfills, contaminating groundwater. Coal companies were major contributors to Mr. Bush's election
Sources: OMB Watch, the Sierra Club, Environment2004. You can find tons more at their prospective websites.
thats basically my point..
Originally Posted by [b
of course you have NEVER heard that Bush has done anything positive!
you have never heard because all the places you get your news only report the gloom and doom..
they only report how GW is so Evil and how Kerry will "fix everything"..
thats the point Ozzy..
even in the face of real facts that disprove the notion that "Bush has done NOTHING positive for the environment" you STILL refuse to believe it could be true?
why? because you are too far gone..
even in the face of facts, you MUST deny them..
its the liberal mantra!
"Bush is ALL evil, ALL the time"!
"something might disprove that? IGNORE IT!!"
"carry on..Bush is all evil all the time"
brainwashed..nothing else explains it..
you have said it TWICE now!
"Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment . Bush has never passed one."
(stated as a fact, as an absolute truth)
then, after proof that is obviously untrue,
you STILL are in denial!
you still cling to:
"I have never heard of anybody say that Bush has ever done anything positive for the environment. I have only heard negative things."
thats because you are only listening to people who WANT you to think that way!!
can you really not see how badly you have been manipulated?
can you really not see how twisted and distorted the message you are being fed is?
its obvious you pride yourself in being a free thinker..
then why do you simply accept "the line" as absolute truth?
even in the face of evidence to the contrary?