What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Since the previous thread was locked and.......

  • Thread starter rattler
  • Start date
and dang it i just brought up a valid point and if you dont mind i will stress the point again as i feel its VERY important and ppl have overlooked it. if you dont agree with something Bush does, or any one else in Government for that matter, get in touch with your senator(s) and reprisentitive(s) in the long run these guys have ALOT of clout in government and can do great(and terrible) things. also you can complain to your governor. most of Bush's enviromental policies that you guys dont like can be made stricter on a state level. by all means GET INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Rattler, you made a great point, and I agree.
 
Problem in Alaska is our governor is one of Bushes' biggest supporters.. and he appointed his daughter as our senator.. she also supports Bush.. neither care what Alaskans want and they've made that clear.. so ANWR will be opened, the forests will be mowed down, bear baiting is still legal, and we'll still have that blasted studded tire tax ..
 
How does one "appoint" a senator? I thought they were elected....
Thanks for the great moss, Bonnie, BTW!

Cheers,

Joe
 
on the ANWR you are refering to oil drilling correct?? my brother worked oil rigs up in Alaska. he gave me quite the insite on how they actually run up there. they are paid HUGE bonuses if they go 6 months without a spill of anytype. going with out spills or injuries can lead to bonuses in the $10,000 dollor range in a 6 month period. it is to their great advantage to be extra careful and make sure everything stays running smoothly. he said he would be at the top of the rig pulling pipe on a new well and a heard of caribou would walk right through the oil field with out a care in the world. also thanks to directional drilling one or two oil wells can do what it used to take a dozen or more wells to do 60 years ago. your forrests will not be mowed down i can assure you the hunters in your state will make dang sure of that they enjoy the wilds to much to allow the clear cutting of their favorite place. btw controled logging does lil to hurt a forrest. forrests in the USA really arent clear cut anymore. they go in and take mature trees and the smaller ones are allowed to grow. right now commercial logging isnt really allowed here in Montana much and it has led to huge forrest fires that wipe out the forrest, houses and most anything in their way. these arent the healthy fires of a 100 years ago. there is to much fuel and they burn to hot which flat out kills the trees. since we dont allow forrest fires to clear out this extra fuel every 5 to 10 years it builds up and catistrophic fires go through. controlled logging can prevent this.
 
Griffin it was an unique situation that made alot of ppl mad.....however they hated her challenger more than they hated how she originally got in. she was appointed because her dad who was the elected senator got elected as governor before his term was up in the senate so he appointed his daughter to take his place in the senate. that clear things up?
 
Some states have laws that don't allow the state's environmental regulations to exceed federal regulations.  I don't foresee that changing in response to any weakening of federal requirements.

State borders don't prevent pollution from crossing, so state regulations are inadequate protection.  Montana sits in a privileged position where relatively little pollution flows into it from uphill or upwind.  If Montana decides to eliminate sewage treatment laws, on the other hand, any financial benefit remains in Montana while the crap flows downstream.  The Connecticut River used to be an open sewer by the time it reached CT from MA, NH, & VT.  It took federal action, not state action, to change that.

Switching to endangered species protection, should the fate of S. alabamensis rely solely on the good will of Alabama?  I don't think so.
 
very good points Bruce. i realise what i brought up doesnt solve all problems but im a firm believer that if you arent going to atleast try to go tough your local governments or even if you just arent going to get involved at all you have no room to complain. and just voting doesnt count as "being involved" although it is a VERY good start. local enviromental problems in Montana..............well just last tuesday we voted on wiether or not we as a state were going to allow cyanide in the use of mining, specifically gold. i voted for the use of it and BEFORE you yell at me ill tell you why: #1 we are a poor state, our teachers are the poorest payed. to reallow mining means more money for the state. #2 we are one of 4 places in the world that outlawed the use of cyanide. one of the 3 places doesnt even have gold deposits. #3 the use of cyanide is MUCH safer than the use of some of the othe VERY noxious stuff that is still allowed under current laws. #4 there was the argument that the current law that we voted on last week provides anything new. and it doesnt. everything in it was availible 30 years ago but the law made it MANDITORY for the first time. with every built in saftey precoution they could think of. very lil of which was required under the old mining laws. #5 the mining companys were happy with these laws, they said they could profitably mine as long as gold stays above an average of $230 an ounce. it was win win for everyone BUT it failed because a bunch of ppl didnt want a gold mine on the Blackfoot river. now i had my doubts about that particular mine but there are several other areas that i dont believe there was an issue. so rather than protesting that particular mine which they could have done and won fairly easily they banned the whole works.

i did say get involved with you Senators and Reps at a federal level. to think that the only way to protect our wildlands is by which president we elect is foolish and dangeous thinking because on alot of these issues your senators and Reps ultimatly have more power than the President. they are the ones who make the vast majority of the laws affecting the enviroment not the President. the President may set the tone but he is not the final word on the issue.

Rattler
 
  • #11
very cool map. thanks for the link. it shows what i thought. large population centers leaned more for Kerry and the more rural areas voted mainly Bush(general comment, not 100% accurate but close enough) my county was more for Kerry even though were as rural as it gets but thats because most native americans here vote for democrats reguardless of who is running. had Bush had a lil D by his name they would have voted for him to. politics has lil to do with it
 
  • #12
I agree with you, the large metro areas voted primarily for kerry, and the more rural areas mostly for bush. There are many exceptions to this, as you indicate in your example regarding the native american votes, which are very interesting (look at southern texas!). What I think is most interesting though, is how purple the map really is: a single state is not 'all bush' or 'all kerry' as the maps we see on the news would have us think.
 
  • #13
yep. like ive said since the begining niether candidate was very strong. it basically came down to who you hated more not who was so much better than the other. HOPEFULLY in 2008 there will be a REALLY good person running but im not going to hold my breath. the attack ads and all the BS is keeping the ppl we really need in office from running and thats the sad thing.
 
  • #14
Only 55% of voting age people voted so, considering the total population, the actual results are (approximately):
45% - None of the above
29% - Bush
26% - Kerry
 
  • #15
How about this for 2008.  Arnold vs. Hillary.  
laugh.gif

I know Arnold can't run but just for fun...who do you think would win?

How about Dan Quale vs Ted Kennedy?

Bill O'Reilley vs Al Gore?
 
  • #16
Hillary was already president
smile_n_32.gif
dont care much for any of those ppl.
 
  • #17
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Lauderdale @ Nov. 09 2004,8:49)]How about this for 2008.  Arnold vs. Hillary.  
laugh.gif

I know Arnold can't run but just for fun...who do you think would win?

How about Dan Quale vs Ted Kennedy?

Bill O'Reilley vs Al Gore?
those would be some funny campaigns. I'm sure Arnold would win, because I still think we're a long ways from voting a woman to president.

Quayle and Kennedy? Those would be some fun debates. They can have a spelling bee after Ted drinks a liter of gin.

O'Reilly vs. Gore. Nothing wrong with that, as we've already had a president who liked kinky stuff not too long ago.
 
Back
Top