| Author | Message | ||
     Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2003 |
Enough threads here already about Bush's war and economy. Let's look at his environmental record. I found this nice article in Rolling Stone Magazine. http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154  | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1138 Registered: 1-2003  |
Bush is very effective at what he does. He says all the things people want to hear, despite the fact that he does the opposite of what he says he's doing. He's more consistent at this than anyone I can think of. I suppose it's really a very clever strategy. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2003 |
Robert Kennedy in Rolling Stone magazine--talk about a reach. Yesterday it was Al Franken, now a Kennedy. If I wrote Bush sucks on toilet paper, you guys would probably refer to it to back up your ever so obvious hatred of Bush. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1139 Registered: 1-2003 |
Please focus on the merits of the argument, not the source. You do a poor job of discrediting the article with your tactic of implying that it's not credible because of who wrote it and where it appeared. What's wrong with the article? RFK Jr has been an environmental activist for a long time. This is not a passing interest of his. He knows more about this than you and I do. This reminds me of when Bush said that Krugman isn't even an economist. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2446 Registered: 10-1999  |
Kenney: It depends. Would the toilet paper roll over the top or from underneath? Seriously, TomR is right. If an article has specific references, accurate sources, and doesn't rely on out-of-context statements, it really shouldn't matter who wrote it. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2003 |
over the top. i would bet a lot of money that over 50% of his 'facts' are misleading. I would also guess that anyone on the other side could refute each and everyone of his points. How many people here really have the time or resources to check his sources? I am not surprised tom readily accepts the message while telling others to prove otherwise. Kennedy is a lying, irrelevent fool. Ask not whether he can be proven wrong, but whether he has ever been right. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2003 |
George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats. This is the beginning of the article--you have to be living in a cave if you think this article is in anyway credible. | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2003 |
It's a very long article and it will be very hard to prove or refute all the claims made, nevertheless I have followed Bush's environmnetal record over the last few years. The article brings up many of the points that I have found in other sources. I thought it is a very good overview of what Bush is doing. To bad that some here will blindly follow the worst president in the recent history of the US. This is the environment that my and your children will grow up in. Bush keeps on cutting environmental laws and regulations, saying the free market will work better then these laws and regulations. The free market is driven by quarterly shareholder reports and short term goals, not by a long term outlook. IMHO it is the governments responsibility to look at the long term and this administration is failing big time on this task. The connections of the Bush mafia to special interest are simply to obvious, but nothing will change until we all stand up and send him back to Texas. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1148 Registered: 12-2001  |
"This is the beginning of the article--you have to be living in a cave if you think this article is in anyway credible." Why? Kenney, your love of Dubbya and hatred of Kennedy aside, you should be able to refute the article on its merits, not just cause a Democrat wrote it. Our current president is no friend to the enviroment no matter what side of the aisle you call home Also you say we have an obvious hatred of Bush that disqualifies us from rational argument and then go on to display your hatred of Kennedy. That seriously dilutes your credibility. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1140 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney, would you care to refute anything specific Kennedy says? The opener may sound threatening to a Bush supporter, but suppose the content of the article supports its own introduction? Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| mem aka "toots" Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2299 Registered: 5-2001  |
Crimes against nature? Look what happened with this experiment....  I have special dispensation to sit in judgment on the lives of everyone, particularly on those I disagree with politically. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2003 |
love? hate? you people really take this stuff that seriously? I don't think anyone believes Bush is a friend of the environment, but i am confident you are not going to find out much from Kennedy. btw, Rush has a new book out on the Clinton impeachment--it's all true!!..if you don't think so(to borrow from tom), refute what points aren't true...i dare you...ha | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 472 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, as of this writing I can't refute Mr. Kennedy as I can't locate the materials right now. But what we're getting is only one side of the argument here, Prosecutor Kennedy, and not Defendant Bush Admin. My bottom line is given the growth this country needs, will things get cleaner. Now, there are people who will argue that the Clear Skies Initiative won't get things cleaner fast enough or as well as under Clinton -- but that could be measured. Regulations and lawsuits in and of themselves don't really accurately judge who cares or is doing a better job of cleaning the environment simply by how many people have been fined or jailed. As for global warming, I'm not convinced that the activity of mankind is the tipping point for world temperatures going over the top and killing us all (or a lot of us). It's vain to think that man is that capable, given the size of one volcanic eruption, the amount of oil that naturally seeps out of the ocean floor -- a bunch of things. That's not to say man has no effect. But take Kyoto -- some studies have shown that were we to implement Kyoto, we'd shave off .19 degrees off the rise in temperatures by 2050. That's peanuts, comparitively. The natural cycle I hold responsible for all this may well reverse itself before that. Reversals sans limiting human activity have happened before, why not now? Now, I'm not saying Kennedy is entirely wrong here in terms of violators (hog farms) etc, but the debate for so long has been to question "The Movement" means you are seen to be running around cheering smokestacks. It's not the case. Neither are "polluters" always in the right (unless they're China and exempted from Kyoto to ensure passage despite the fact that by 2010, many see China being the #2 oil consumer in the world). There. How moderate of me. | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1432 Registered: 10-2001 |
boring (not you toots) "That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." --President George W. Bush | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1141 Registered: 1-2003 |
I really don't care about Clinton. He's out and can do no more good or damage. You're right that love and hate are irrelevant. But I made a point about RFK Jr. He knows the environment. It is his business. This may come as news to you, but it's pretty presumptuous to dismiss him so casually on environmental matters. Unless there is something about his environmental record we ought to know. Is there? In other words, if you want to dismiss him because he's a relative of the Kennedys, that's a pretty cheap shot. If you want to take a better shot at his expertise or record, go right ahead. Try to do it without name calling. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1142 Registered: 1-2003 |
cjc, I agree with what you say. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 21 Registered: 9-2003 |
I can't believe I am goiing to have to see these ridiculous posts for another 5 yrs. He has done more for AIDS, Medicare, and lightening the tax burden for working families them anyone in a long while. What is sad is how liberals seem almost excited by he lost of life in Iraq to try and further thier isolationist views. Lets discuss the uncomapssionate liberal for a change. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2003 |
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Background The way Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has assumed command of the Water Keeper Alliance, you’d almost think he started the environmental movement on his own. But he actually stumbled into it as a result of a 1984 criminal conviction for heroin possession. A judge sentenced him to 800 hours of community service, which he satisfied with volunteer work for the Hudson River Foundation. After his 800 hours were used up, the organization (now operating as the Hudson Riverkeepers) hired Kennedy as its “chief prosecuting attorney.” In the years since his drug conviction, Kennedy has also gone to work for the Natural Resources Defense Council and assumed a professorship in the law school at Pace University. Kennedy also started Pace’s environmental law clinic specifically to sue governments and businesses on behalf of Riverkeeper. Robert Kennedy approaches environmental law with a brash, take-no-prisoners approach that tends to alienate many who might otherwise be his allies. After working with him on a $10 million New York City watershed agreement, Putnam County (NY) legal counsel George Rodenhausen told reporters that “he separates himself from good science at times in order to aggressively pursue an issue and win.” Kennedy’s harshest public thrashing to date, however, came from one of his closest colleagues, Riverkeeper founder Robert Boyle. Along with seven other Riverkeeper board members, Boyle resigned in 2000 after Kennedy insisted upon hiring a convicted environmental felon as the group’s chief scientist. At the time, Boyle told the New York Post that Kennedy “is very reckless,” and added that “[h]e’s assumed an arrogance above his intellectual stature.” Reflecting on the episode later, Boyle gave the New York Times an apt summary of Kennedy’s attitude regarding his environmental crusades: “I thought he was thinking of himself and not the cause of the river,” Boyle said. “It all became his own greater glory.” | ||
| Earlster Citizen Username: Earlster Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2003 |
The Kyoto protocol was already watered down, due to pressure from the Clinton administration. He said he wouldn't sign it unless significant changes were made. One of the key ones was that countries could buy pollution allowances from other countries. The driving forces behind Kyoto grumbled, but figured it would be better to include the #1 polluter in the world (us), even with a weaker agreement. For Bush even this is not enough, he shows no responsibility towards his own country, the rest of the world or our own children.' cjc, even .19 degrees (and one might disagree with you on that number) is not peanuts. Global warming of only 1 - 2 degrees can have significant impact on the weather, polar caps, glaciers and many other factors. There are no peanuts left to play with. For everybody here who thinks that our economic growth is more important than anything else, you might consider that R&D into renewable energies, pollution prevention and other enery saving industries has been one of the largest contributers to growth in many european economies. It is the short sighted clinging to the status quo of oil, coal and nuclear energy that has prevented this kind of industrie from flourishing in the US so far. If the US doesn't use it's research power in those areas, we will be losing future jobs to the countries that have invested into these fields. | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 22 Registered: 9-2003 |
Every heard of the iceage? It is a natural process for the globe to warm and cool. The iceage must have been caused by those damn dinosaurs. They must have been Republicans. Me, I blame Bush. |
