What's new

Bush voters and cp conservation

Finch

Whats it to ya?
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
3,472
Location
South Dakota
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and no new Walmarts will be built anywhere in America

Walmarts! Oh dont get me started! In hawaii  they were bilding the biggest walmart supercenter ever. In the prossec of diging the foundation they found several ancient native hawwian burial mounds/toombs/ whatever they are. Instead of the natives rewuests to rebuild the center somewhere else and leave their ancestors final resting place alone, they continued to build and paved over the burial site. When asked about it, a walmart spokesperson said about the huge supercenter, "walmart is saying alohah to the people of hawaii"

alohah beens 'hello' and 'goodby' in Hawaiin, or in walmart's case, it also means  '**** you and your dead ansectors'

And in mexico resedents are fighting against walmart, wich plans to put a new store... in the shadow of a myan pyramid.
 

Ozzy

SirKristoff is a poopiehead
Staff member
Supporter
Moderator
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Greenswamp, NC
When I blame bush for something, I'm talking facts not accusations. Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment . Bush has never passed one, but Bush has passed laws to let big corporations pollute the environment and he's even did away with many of the laws that Clinton passed, including one that will allow the building of roads through protected lands.
How can you guys say with a straight face that Bush is better for the environment?
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
784
Maybe conservation isn't a top priority among other things, like money and SUVs.
Don't you also hate it when children regurgitate their parents' thoughts (I admire Ron Reagan to certain extents)? Conservatives and liberals alike. Few people are left to think for themselves nowadays! They call it daydreaming now don't they? Pfft...

Amori
 

Finch

Whats it to ya?
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
3,472
Location
South Dakota
well if the parents talk about polotics at all the childrens veiws are certainly going to be influenced by them. its called learning from your parents, as you learn morals and manners, so too do some teach their children about their veiws. The children may or maynot hold the same veiws, but they certainly can be influenced
mem_online.gif
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
2,968
Location
Western New York, USA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (0zzy @ Nov. 01 2004,11:36)]When I blame bush for something, I'm talking facts not accusations. Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment . Bush has never passed one, but Bush has passed laws to let big corporations pollute  the environment and he's even did away with many of the laws that Clinton passed, including one that will allow the building of roads through protected lands.
How can you guys say with a straight face that Bush is better for the environment?
Facts you say?
Facts?
Facts like "Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment . Bush has never passed one."
are those the kinds of "Facts" you mean?
hmmmm...

<span style='color:blue'>Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of brownfields to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.

President Bush supported and signed into law a Farm Bill that enhances conservation and environmental stewardship. Under this Administration, funding has nearly doubled for these effective programs. The Farm Bill conservation programs are providing more than $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches.

Under Bush, he said, the EPA has focused significant research dollars to trace the cause of oxygen-depleted "dead zones" in Lake Erie. It has worked with Ohio officials to solve sewer overflow problems, and has provided more money to clean up polluted industrial sites.
Bush also signed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides $15 million yearly to clean up polluted sites along the Great Lakes.
Skinner said the reason the Superfund program is running out of money is because the Clinton administration let a tax that funded it expire. He said EPA is using resources it has to ensure that Superfund cleanups occur.
Bush's 2004 budget will increase Superfund cleanup money by $150 million over 2003, the EPA said.</span>



sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus....nts.pdf

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/oh/102603_great_lakes.htm

nice FACTS there huh?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Bush has never passed one.
im not allowed to say "you lied"..so instead I will just have to say "in my opinion liberals simply make up "false truths" and present them as facts to spread..ummm..(cant use the word "lie") to spread disinformation hoping the gullible will believe it..and sadly, they believe it in droves"..
I guess that will have to do..
Ozzy, actually I DONT belive you lied!
you probably had no clue that Bush did actually pass those laws. because some people dont want you to know that.
the "untruth" suits the cause much better..
im sure you fully believed what you said was true..
you are a victim of the machine.
as are many of you..
Scot
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
2,344
Location
NC
Oh please. As if only one side did that.
And you're the victim of "the machine" (what the heck is that?). Ask any environmental group and they'll tell you bush has reversed the progress on environmental protection.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
2,968
Location
Western New York, USA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Nov. 01 2004,2:35)]Oh please. As if only one side did that.
thats exactly my point..
some people here will have us believe that the environment is SOOOOOO much better off under a democrat president.
and that Bush has passed NO environmental laws..
Im just proving those misguided notions wrong..
there are no extremes like that.
one side is not pure evil, and the other side pure sweet goodness.
both do good, and both do bad..

if you dont recognise what "the machine" is,
then you are under its influence and cant even see that it exists. so I wouldnt be surprised that many people will deny it even exists at all..it works that well.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
2,968
Location
Western New York, USA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Nov. 01 2004,2:35)]Ask any environmental group and they'll tell you bush has reversed the progress on environmental protection.
are you really suggesting we should look to "Environmental groups" for unbiased truthfull information about the environment?!
smile_k_ani_32.gif

most "Environmental groups" are nothing more than thinly disguised political extremist clubs..
the environment is VERY low on their list of real priorities..
Scot
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
2,344
Location
NC
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]both do good, and both do bad..
Yes. Just because both do good and both do bad does not mean they do it in the same ratio. Bush does more bad than good about the environment. Even if kerry does more bad than good, I believe it would do more good than BUSH.
It is all relative.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
2,344
Location
NC
so who should we look at for environmental issues if not the people who CARE about it? The big rich companies that worsen the environment? That get RICH from messing up the environment?
 

Ozzy

SirKristoff is a poopiehead
Staff member
Supporter
Moderator
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Greenswamp, NC
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.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
389
Location
Columbus, Ohio
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Nov. 01 2004,11:24)]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.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
131
Location
Desert USA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Nov. 01 2004,8:59)]im sure that if Kerry wins no more wetlands will be drained at all for 4 years.
and no new Walmarts will be built anywhere in America.
hundreds of square miles of open farmland will NOT be paved over for new housing developements if Kerry wins..
yep, destruction of the global environment is TOTALLY dependant on if a democrat or a rebublican is in office..
I remember the 90's when Clinton was president for 8 years..no environmental destruction took place AT ALL anywhere in the WHOLE WORLD during those whole 8 years!
it was truly a utopian dreamland..
Scot
how do you know that?
kerry hasnt said one thing about what he is going to do.
never once.

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
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
210
Location
Las Vegas
Here's one for you. I'm from Nevada so I have personal experience in this regard.

Yucca Mountain.

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.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,100
Location
menomonie
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
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,100
Location
menomonie
[b said:
Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Nov. 01 2004,7:20)]Facts you say?
Facts?
Facts like "Clinton passed many bills and laws to protect the environment . Bush has never passed one."
are those the kinds of "Facts" you mean?
hmmmm...

<span style='color:blue'>Fulfilling a commitment he made when he ran for President, President Bush signed historic bipartisan brownfields legislation in 2002, accelerating the cleanup of brownfields to better protect public health, create jobs, and revitalize communities.

President Bush supported and signed into law a Farm Bill that enhances conservation and environmental stewardship. Under this Administration, funding has nearly doubled for these effective programs. The Farm Bill conservation programs are providing more than $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches.

Under Bush, he said, the EPA has focused significant research dollars to trace the cause of oxygen-depleted "dead zones" in Lake Erie. It has worked with Ohio officials to solve sewer overflow problems, and has provided more money to clean up polluted industrial sites.
Bush also signed the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides $15 million yearly to clean up polluted sites along the Great Lakes.
Skinner said the reason the Superfund program is running out of money is because the Clinton administration let a tax that funded it expire. He said EPA is using resources it has to ensure that Superfund cleanups occur.
Bush's 2004 budget will increase Superfund cleanup money by $150 million over 2003, the EPA said.</span>



sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus....nts.pdf

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/oh/102603_great_lakes.htm

nice FACTS there huh?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Bush has never passed one.
im not allowed to say "you lied"..so instead I will just have to say "in my opinion liberals simply make up "false truths" and present them as facts to spread..ummm..(cant use the word "lie") to spread disinformation hoping the gullible will believe it..and sadly, they believe it in droves"..
I guess that will have to do..
Ozzy, actually I DONT belive you lied!
you probably had no clue that Bush did actually pass those laws. because some people dont want you to know that.
the "untruth" suits the cause much better..
im sure you fully believed what you said was true..
you are a victim of the machine.
as are many of you..
Scot
Yeah, Bush's environmental record is pretty good:


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
campaign.

Sources: OMB Watch, the Sierra Club, Environment2004. You can find tons more at their prospective websites.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
2,968
Location
Western New York, USA
[b said:
Quote[/b] (0zzy @ Nov. 01 2004,3:53)]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.
thats basically my point..
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?

Scot
 
Top