The idea that Bush has “rolled back” clean air and water is a trope. Unless of course you think Clinton was for dirty water that is. Clinton passed new standards for drinking water, based on unreliable science and imposing expensive burdens on water providers, during the last days of his administration. Bush merely reinstituted the standards Clinton had in place for the previous 8 years.
Our air and water are cleaner now than they have been since we began tracking pollution levels.
My father paid union dues to the Teamsters for 27 years, except for a 6 week break when his first employer went broke. He was horribly (lost an arm) injured on the job. He got NADA from the Teamsters because of that 6 week break, nothing. They had a hidden clause – so not a penny. Good old James R. shipped all the dues to the gangsters in Vegas. Hope he is enjoying his new home at the bottom of a lake. Nice shoes, Jimmy!!
[quote]supsaiyan wrote:
Joe was never born. His birth wasn’t convenient for his mother and some liberals fought to make sure his mother had the right to terminate his life before birth.[/quote]
For what it is worth, the TNRCC, the state funded EPA in Texas, is extremely tough to deal with. At one point (during Bush’s tenure as Governor) I had three manufacturing facilities in Texas (Houston, Longview and Beaumont.) I also had facilities in Benicia, CA (bay area) and LA. I would state without hesitation that the TNRCC was as difficult to deal with as the Bay Area group in California. The Bay area authorities are notorious for busting your balls and the Texas guys gave them a run for their money.
The main difference b/t the guys from Cali and Texas were that you were typically dealing with people in Texas who understood your industry and what they (TNRCC) were trying to accomplish. I would call them tough but fair.
On the other hand, in the Bay area (Cali) you had a bunch of weenies who couldn’t find their ass with both hands and a road map relative to the industries they were regulating and typically took very impractical and often times ridiculous approaches to enforcement.
Therein lies the problem.
Environmental regulation is overly burdensome at best and downright useless at worse if it is drafted by people who don’t have a clue about the industry they are regulating.
This is why I have serious problems with all these bleeding ass liverals and environmental groups who have these “opinions” but have never spent a day working in a refinery, a pulp mill, a chem plant, a power plant, etc. They don’t even understand what they are trying to regulate. It’s all based on emotion.
Bush is not soft on the environment. His cabinet just has a much greater understanding of industry and the practicality of some of these regulations than previous administrations.
Conservatives have worked their balls off to block EVERY bit of good legislation to ever come down the pike in America. If it were up to them, we’d still have a separate army for blacks, separate restaurants and schools and toilets for blacks, Jewish kids being forced to recite Christian New Testament verses in public schools, and all movies screened by the Catholic church before they could be shown.
Wasn’t Bush allowing Southern Power to build a whole load of new coal power stations? "
“Mmm sulphur-licious.”
Didn’t he pull out of the Kyoto agreement too?
“Save the planet?! Pff, sell the damn planet, hey doesn’t America own the moon too?”.
Isn’t Bush looking to allow oil drilling and strip mining in Alaska too?
“Ahh theres too much nature anyway. People aren’t animals, they don’t need trees and plants, they need oil for their Hummers damn it!”
Didn’t he give tax breaks on huge polluting cars like the aforementioned Hummers?
“Hey, the Governator gotta have his dubs!”
Yeah those conservatives sure have a ‘different’ way of solving environmental problems.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Wasn’t Bush allowing Southern Power to build a whole load of new coal power stations? "
“Mmm sulphur-licious.”[/quote] Don’t know, but are you saying there couldn’t be cleaner coal power plants with modern technology? That’s the advantage of building new plants…
[quote]Didn’t he pull out of the Kyoto agreement too? [/quote] Actually, the Senate voted – 98-0 if I’m not mistaken in my memory – not to ratify, because the treaty is ridiculously stupid in terms of its economic cost vs. benefits.
[quote]“Save the planet?! Pff, sell the damn planet, hey doesn’t America own the moon too?”. [/quote] Really? Who’s buying? Perhaps the same people who are pointing out that the poor are the most hurt by rising energy prices? Just what effect do you expect Kyoto to have, anyway?
[quote]Isn’t Bush looking to allow oil drilling and strip mining in Alaska too?
“Ahh theres too much nature anyway. People aren’t animals, they don’t need trees and plants, they need oil for their Hummers damn it!”[/quote] Oil drilling yes – strip mining, I don’t believe so. Not that it would matter, given the area under consideration is one of the most godforsaken on the planet – akin to a freezing desert, with moquitos… And, of course, with modern technology, they could drill there with only a minimum footprint. Not that Luddite hippies care about such things as they work themselves into a tizzy over the thought we might have some domestic oil sources at minimal environmental costs. Better to let the poor spend all their money on energy, or to let the weak, poor and old die because they can’t afford heat or air conditioning…
[quote]Didn’t he give tax breaks on huge polluting cars like the aforementioned Hummers?
“Hey, the Governator gotta have his dubs!”
Yeah those conservatives sure have a ‘different’ way of solving environmental problems.[/quote]
Actually, I think the tax differentials on light trucks and SUVs have been in place since the early 80s. Not that facts matter when you’re trying to stop consumers from buying what they want. You obviously know better than they do what’s good for them. Doesn’t matter much how they view safety of their passengers in the equation.
[quote]Pyotr wrote:
Very true. And an UNDERSTATEMENT if anything.
Conservatives have worked their balls off to block EVERY bit of good legislation to ever come down the pike in America. If it were up to them, we’d still have a separate army for blacks, separate restaurants and schools and toilets for blacks, Jewish kids being forced to recite Christian New Testament verses in public schools, and all movies screened by the Catholic church before they could be shown.
[/quote]
Which group was it that forced Reconstruction again? The Radical Republicans? Oh yes, that’s right…
And what’s this about a Catholic/Protestant conservative front?
Conservatives have attempted to block EVERY piece of good legislation?
Wasn’t Bush allowing Southern Power to build a whole load of new coal power stations? "
“Mmm sulphur-licious.”
Uhh, sulphur hasn’t been a problem from an emissions standpoint for coal fired plants in about 40 years. there are these things called scrubbers. Welcome to the 21st century.
Didn’t he pull out of the Kyoto agreement too?
“Save the planet?! Pff, sell the damn planet, hey doesn’t America own the moon too?”.
Do you know anything about the Kyoto treaty? It was a bag of shit.
Isn’t Bush looking to allow oil drilling and strip mining in Alaska too?
“Ahh theres too much nature anyway. People aren’t animals, they don’t need trees and plants, they need oil for their Hummers damn it!”
Hmmm. I for one couldn’t care less about these activities in Alaska. Have you ever been to Louisiana? They are required to modern drilling and mining sites? Theyh are required to return the sites back to their original condition when finished. Strip mining is antiquated. This isn’t 1920, dude.
Didn’t he give tax breaks on huge polluting cars like the aforementioned Hummers?
“Hey, the Governator gotta have his dubs!”
Yeah those conservatives sure have a ‘different’ way of solving environmental problems.
To coprorations owning them, yes. However, this is not something Bush did. These laws have been in effect for years and are based on GVW. Big freakin’ deal.
Maybe you should stick with politics on your side of the ocean, slugger.
[quote]Pyotr wrote:
Very true. And an UNDERSTATEMENT if anything.
Conservatives have worked their balls off to block EVERY bit of good legislation to ever come down the pike in America. If it were up to them, we’d still have a separate army for blacks, separate restaurants and schools and toilets for blacks, Jewish kids being forced to recite Christian New Testament verses in public schools, and all movies screened by the Catholic church before they could be shown.
[/quote]
Funny thing about us conservatives - were it not for us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would’ve died.
You really need to think about what you write before you go puking your hatred out in public.
Actually, the Kyoto treaty was voted down, 90 to 0 in the Senate. It seems even Kerry, Teddy and the Hilda-beast weren’t willing to outlaw the internal combustion engine, close down all of our factories and otherwise destroy our economy to please the French. BTW, no other country in the world has implemented Kyoto either - even those who signed it. As for the arsenic in the water scare, the proposed regulations that Bush refused to back would have required drinking water to contain less arsenic than broccoli does naturally! This would have made all well and spring water illegal to sell for public consumption and mineral waters, such as Perrier would be banned. Now, the coal fueled power plants are indeed a problem. You see, nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient source of fuel currently available on the market. However, those wise, wonderful libs have prevented the construction of new sites for the past 20 years, and shut down many that were already online. Why? Because, the movies tell us how dangerous the radioactive byproducts are of nuclear energy. One problem: Coal produces more radioactive waste! About 99% more, plus other toxins.
Well, who are you going to vote for then John? Oh, that’s right, you’re not from our country, so you can’t vote here.
Damn our war machine was good wasn’t it! Good thing we saved your little island for ya. Cost an awful lot of oil to do it though, not to mention all those vehicles belching diesel fumes into the atmosphere over the continent.
Maybe we shouldn’t have messed with it; sure would’ve left the world a cleaner place to live if we didn’t.
Lumpy’s astounding ignorance is best viewed as comedy to be laughed at, not with. A half-decent economist could write a book on all of the errors of the post, if he wanted to take the time to do so. It’s easier to just laugh.
Da Man
You wanted me to address your points. You said in your “rebuttal” that the air and water in Cincy weren’t clean now.
Umm…DUH???
So I guess the answer then is for Bush to roll back EVEN MORE environmental protection? What was your point then?
George W. Bush has the worst environmental record of any modern president. You guys who like to eat fish, I hope you don’t mind a side order of yummy mercury with that.
Boston Barrister-
“Minimum footprint drilling”, “cleaner coal power plants”. (“luddite hippy”?! I have nothing to do with english craftsmens revolutions and I’m a bit young for the whole hippy thing + I own an iPod AND an LPG Land Rover! Anyway Luddites hated the fact machines were taking over their crafts, I don’t care about that, theres just far better and cleaner ways to make power than coal! My god, you’re calling me a luddite and defending coal as a power source for the 21st century!) Seriously though… ok, the lets say the drilling has little footprint, but it isn’t just going to happen in god-forsaken tundra at all! Alaska has oil all over the place, not to mention rich mineral deposits (hence mining interest). These ventures bring man into areas which they disturb with roads, ‘forest management’ and the rest of the great things we love. On top of that the last thing the world can cope with is the continuing need for fossil fuels and the opening of new oil fields. Even the most hardened Conservative knows the way we’re going is unsustainable, tell me we can burn fossil fuels forever. Its so god damn short sighted. I want to have kids and I want them to be able to live, because what ever cost/benfit ratios and economic shortfalls you come up with this is what it ALL boils down (now listen hard): can man survive? As we are going, we can’t. I know its hard to imagine a planet without WalMart but much as it may suprise you, that is normality for the world. Man is a blip, to survive we have to adapt, just as we have been doing for millions of years. One of those adaptations is cutting out fossil fuels. Of course while there are dollars to be made and heads up asses I’ll be a ludite hippy while I think of the future.
By all scientific estimates, assuming that world oil usage increases at 100 times its current rate, and no new oil reserves are found, known oil reserves will last for another 100,000 years. Maybe I’ll worry about it in 95,000 years or so. And yes, I figure Biotest will probably come up with a supplement that allows me to live that long! If you want some real envio facts, read some books by the founder of Greepeace. I will actually get you a link for that, 'cause I can’t remember his name.
Patrick Moore. The watermellons (green on the outside, red on the inside) hate him. He tells the truth, and costs them big government grants. There is another guy whose name I also can’t remember, with a similar background. It’s a Sweedish sounding name. I’ll try to remember, but I’d appreciate it if anyone else knows. If you really want to know the truth, you’ll listen to both sides and see who has the facts and hard science. If you want to continue your ignorant rants, you’ll ignore this post. I don’t care; I’m not trying to save the world
