this was sent to me recently for feedback. normally i don't pay attention to US politics since we have our own problems in canada figuring out whether something is a federal, provincial or municipal issue, but i was surprised to see some of the allegations made here. i am just wonderng what someone more knowledgeable than i about US stuff thinks about all this. hope it's not too long.
sorry! it was too long so i deleted it. i will try to put it up on the web instead and post the url later.
in fact, here is the URL:
http://towardsfreedom.com/veggiechess/jrspeech.html
in friendship,
prad
you cant possibly believe that crap! it says that former president bush wrote it for one. there is no possible way he would try to destroy his son like that. and for another so many of those allegations are completely false. all that is is a campaign to try to get whats his name some votes.the fact is the reason the clinton administration did so well in public opinion... is the policies that former pers bush set before he left office. that is the most pathetic attempt at a vote i have ever seen.
in america it seems people will do anything just to get their little voices heard. thi is just his attempt to get some recognition and some supporters. that is truly pathetic.
mike
Originally posted by usmc7257Leaving aside the issue of the war, what do you think about the environmental stuff in there?
you cant possibly believe that crap! it says that former president bush wrote it for one. there is no possible way he would try to destroy his son like that. and for another so many of those allegations are completely false. all that is is a campaign to try to get whats his name some votes.the fact is the reason the clinton administration did so well in pub ...[text shortened]... ust his attempt to get some recognition and some supporters. that is truly pathetic.
mike
I don't think we can take four more years of Bush's environmental policy. The rampant drought and wildfires are just the beginning, and even if we stopped all fossil fuel use right now (which is of course impossible) it would still take decades to undo the damage that has already been done.
I just hope that enough US voters see the need to take some proactive steps to deal with the greenhouse gas problem.
Originally posted by richjohnsonKick your own holes.
Leaving aside the issue of the war, what do you think about the environmental stuff in there?
I don't think we can take four more years of Bush's environmental policy. The rampant drought and wildfires are just the beginning, and even if we stopped all fossil fuel use right now (which is of course impossible) it would still take decades to undo the ...[text shortened]... ugh US voters see the need to take some proactive steps to deal with the greenhouse gas problem.
.
Originally posted by richjohnsonYou aren't honestly implying the recent forest fires in California are President Bush's fault are you? Come on.
Leaving aside the issue of the war, what do you think about the environmental stuff in there?
I don't think we can take four more years of Bush's environmental policy. The rampant drought and wildfires are just the beginning, and even if we stopped all fossil fuel use right now (which is of course impossible) it would still take decades to undo the ...[text shortened]... ugh US voters see the need to take some proactive steps to deal with the greenhouse gas problem.
bush wasnt as bad on the environment as people claim he was. just because he hasnt made any enivornment saving acts like previous presidents did doesnt mean he doesnt care. is he a bad president... not for me to say. has he destroyed america? no. he had a very high approval rating before the war duing all of this so called environment crap. it has slipped some for reasons obvious but still more than half the population agrees with his policies. its just people like the one who wrote that little essay that claim everything he has ever done is a step back.
Come on rich johnson freethinker.. Thats some mighty fancy free thinking to give Pres. Bush credit for drought and wildfires dont you think ?? lol .. Lord lets hope the big Quake doesnt drop on California during his presidency ,Im sure you 'll give him credit for that too!! lol. By the way if he was responsible lets just rename him -How about Almighty huh -lol ...--BBG
Originally posted by bluebabygirlWhere in richjohnson's post does he claim that Bush is responsible for droughts and wildfires? I read his post completely differently. I thought he was saying that these things are partial results of the greenhouse gas problem, and that the Bush administration isn't doing enough to combat that problem. I'm sure that Rich doesn't think that droughts and wildfires are the result of Bush's environmental policy. Rather, he thinks that the U.S. has been a poor environmental steward for generations, and Bush's administration has failed in combatting the problems it inherited. So come on Bluebabygirl, that's some might fancy uncritical reading your doing of richjohnson's post, lol.
Come on rich johnson freethinker.. Thats some mighty fancy free thinking to give Pres. Bush credit for drought and wildfires dont you think ?? lol .. Lord lets hope the big Quake doesnt drop on California during his presidency ,Im sure you 'll give him credit for that too!! lol. By the way if he was responsible lets just rename him -How about Almighty huh -lol ...--BBG
No, Bush cannot be blamed for the recent wildfires. Climate change happens very gradually, so if anyone's to be blamed it's Rockefeller 😉.
Seriously though, I admit I was being a bit dramatic, but Bush did decide to pull out of the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto may be a poorly drafted agreement, but at least it was a start. Without the world's largest energy consumer involved, now it's meaningless.
But my main gripe is with Bush's energy plan, which relies heavily on fossil fuels and seems to pay only lip service to alternative energy sources. (Here's a couple of pre 11/9/01 articles accusing him of pandering to the oil co's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1336960.stm
http://www.towson.edu/~jmichael/Bush%20Energy%20Policy.htm)
Unfortunately, many people will be too distracted by the war to pay any attention to this during the election.
Originally posted by richjohnson"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."—George. W. Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002
No, Bush cannot be blamed for the recent wildfires. Climate change happens very gradually, so if anyone's to be blamed it's Rockefeller 😉.
Seriously though, I admit I was being a bit dramatic, but Bush did decide to pull out of t ...[text shortened]... acted by the war to pay any attention to this during the election.
Seriously, for a fair and balanced look at the Bush administration's decision to bail on the Kyoto treaty, check out this BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1269009.stm
Seriously, for a fair and balanced look at the Bush administration's decision to bail on the Kyoto treaty, check out this BBC article:Fair and balanced? That article was one person's opinion on the issues. A singers opinion on the issues. STING's opinion on the issues. Like a care a bit what sting has to say, he's singing on the blasted "Victoria Secret's" special on TV. Sheesh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1269009.stm
[/b]
Spouting rhetoric from celebrities is not a good basis for argument. Celebrities are largely insulated, surrounded by other people with the same point of view. If all you EVER hear is that someone is evil, stupid and ruining the world then that is what you will believe. Even if it is exactly opposite of the truth.
Bush had an almost unanimous Senate behind him in not ratifying the Kyoto treaty. The draconian measures would have hurt the economy even worse than it was hit over the past three years. Imagine: 911, the airline industry in the tank, the dot com bust AND unreasonable restrictions dictated in the Kyoto treaty.
The US has a GHG reduction plan in place that is tied to the growth (or lack thereof) of the economy. If the economy grows the administration's plan allows for growth in GHG, if it doesn't it restricts it. http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/ . That lays out the plan as well as illustrating the hundreds of millions of dollars slated for developing improvements to current technologies as well as support for developing countries and a multitude of other efforts in the field of conservation and energy use improvement.
This does not even show the $2 Billion pledged to continue and increase research in Fuel Cell technology.
And regarding richjohnson's comment about the wild fires. I took it the way I think he meant it as a slam on Bush. Placing blame for an unseasonable drought and YEARS of fire SUPPRESSION that resulted in lot's of fuel for the fire, in the lap of the sitting president.
Originally posted by gregofthewebgregoftheweb,
Fair and balanced? That article was one person's opinion on the issues. A singers opinion on the issues. STING's opinion on the issues. Like a care a bit what sting has to say, he's singing on the blasted "Victoria Secret's" special on TV. Sheesh.
Spouting rhetoric from celebrities is not a good basis for argument. Celebrities are largely ...[text shortened]... e SUPPRESSION that resulted in lot's of fuel for the fire, in the lap of the sitting president.
Lighten up, I was just joking around, of course Sting isn't going to provide a fair and balanced look a Bush's withdrawl from the Kyoto treaty. The fact that I entitled it a "fair and balanced" comment should have been enough to tip you off.
Bennett
Originally posted by gregofthewebThat's not what I meant - I was using the fires as an example of the problems caused by climatte change. The "unseasonable" drought has been going on for a while now (see http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/aug02/noaa02104.html).
And regarding richjohnson's comment about the wild fires. I took it the way I think he meant it as a slam on Bush. Placing blame for an unseasonable drought and YEARS of fire SUPPRESSION that resulted in lot's of fuel for the fire, in the lap of the sitting president.
As I stated above, it takes a long time for climate change to happen. This means that any actions taken or not taken by the Bush administration will probably not have any noticeable effect for decades. This also means that this issue is low on the priority list for most politicians, since it's hard to point to concrete results at election time.
The point I'm trying to make is that, with any luck, in a few years Iraq will have been sorted out, but our problems with climate change are still going to be here. I'm sure the Bush administration is taking some sort of action, but everything I've read about what they're doing is critical of their continued support of the fossil fuel industries.
Thanks for the link, Greg. I suppose I'll have to read the policies myself and see if the media portrayal is accurate (but it's getting too late right now).
Sorry about getting heated, it was late.
We also need to take into context that we are coming off of an 8 year run of the pendulum in the opposite direction. The previous administration pushed through a multitude of environmental restrictions and presidential edicts that are being rolled back. So when the left screams about everything being cut to the bone it is in the context of everything being extended in the nineties.