One thing Oprano needs

[PornoDoggy]

The other thing that bothers me about Bush is his anti-conservation approach to things.

Before you know it, we will be facing another crisis in dealing with our natural racehorses.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

The other thing that bothers me about Bush is his anti-conservation approach to things.

Before you know it, we will be facing another crisis in dealing with our natural racehorses.

Ok Emily Litella......

Anticonservation ? I haven't seen any forests being torn down. Everybody is complaining about how the oil companies aren't increasing production, so, as far as I know there haven't been any new major pipelines built destroying mother nature and there sure haven't been too awful many new oil drills dug.

We started on the clean air/clean water programs back in '70 or so. I am sure you remember the days where you could walk across Lake Erie, when various major rivers in our country would all of a sudden catch fire. We had most of that cleaned up in an amazingly short period of time. All the doomsayers were saying Lake Erie was dead. Well, because of the stuff we put in in the 70's it was no longer true by the end of the seventies.

Almost all of our lakes and rivers are fishable, swimmable, drinkable and have been for many years. The only scaling back done by the administration was additional stuff that was put in place under Clinton. Most of it was designed to cost business money witout having any discernible impact.

Bush and Co didn't come in and say wipe it out, we don't need nature. They came in, identified that legislation that was costing lot's of money but producing no gain either ecologically or economically and they targetted it for repeal.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Ok Emily Litella......

Anticonservation ? I haven't seen any forests being torn down. Everybody is complaining about how the oil companies aren't increasing production, so, as far as I know there haven't been any new major pipelines built destroying mother nature and there sure haven't been too awful many new oil drills dug.

We started on the clean air/clean water programs back in '70 or so. I am sure you remember the days where you could walk across Lake Erie, when various major rivers in our country would all of a sudden catch fire. We had most of that cleaned up in an amazingly short period of time. All the doomsayers were saying Lake Erie was dead. Well, because of the stuff we put in in the 70's it was no longer true by the end of the seventies.

Almost all of our lakes and rivers are fishable, swimmable, drinkable and have been for many years. The only scaling back done by the administration was additional stuff that was put in place under Clinton. Most of it was designed to cost business money witout having any discernible impact.

Bush and Co didn't come in and say wipe it out, we don't need nature. They came in, identified that legislation that was costing lot's of money but producing no gain either ecologically or economically and they targetted it for repeal.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The errosion in air quality/emisson standards allowed by some of Bush's de- and re-regulation goes much further back than the Clinton era.

The Clean Water Act accomplished a lot in some areas much quicker than anticipated, but arguing that the work was done by the end of the '70s is dead wrong.

The "pro-business" arguements ring kind of hollow. I've been around long enough to remember how the Clean Air Act was going to destroy the American economy. I've been around long enough to remember how the Clean Water Act was going to destroy the American economy. Oddly enough, the American economy has survived every piece of environmental legislation that was going to kill it. You would think they would learn a new line.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

The "pro-business" arguements ring kind of hollow. I've been around long enough to remember how the Clean Air Act was going to destroy the American economy. I've been around long enough to remember how the Clean Water Act was going to destroy the American economy. Oddly enough, the American economy has survived every piece of environmental legislation that was going to kill it. You would think they would learn a new line.

Nice twisting of the argument there PD I didn't say that anything was killing the economy. What I said was that the regulations that were canned were ones that were ineffective meaning they were not and could not accomplish their goals in the manner that they were implemented. So, forcing companies to spend additional money on something that was not working was a waste. Instead, those companies have additional funds to find more ecologically friendly paths to their profits.

George W is an environmentalist. He owns the fucking Ponderosa for god's sake. He loves nature, you can tell by how much time he devotes to spending outdoors.

Sheez, you can call Dubya whatever you want but don't even try to paint him as anti environment. The environment hasn't had such a friendly administration since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Nice twisting of the argument there PD I didn't say that anything was killing the economy. What I said was that the regulations that were canned were ones that were ineffective meaning they were not and could not accomplish their goals in the manner that they were implemented. So, forcing companies to spend additional money on something that was not working was a waste. Instead, those companies have additional funds to find more ecologically friendly paths to their profits.

George W is an environmentalist. He owns the fucking Ponderosa for god's sake. He loves nature, you can tell by how much time he devotes to spending outdoors.

Sheez, you can call Dubya whatever you want but don't even try to paint him as anti environment. The environment hasn't had such a friendly administration since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

That's a damned lie.

The most environmentally friendly President since Teddy Roosevelt is my least favorite president - Nixon. Clinton tried to do more for national parkland, but most of that progress has been overturned.

I will give credit where it is due - forestry management has improved, and should reduce the danger of massive fires over time. Whether that was done for environmental purposes, or because it was viewed as an in for lumber companies is open to debate.

The fact that GW owns some property upon which photo ops are conducted doesn't mean he is an environmentalist.

Hell's bells, there's even some criticism of his environmental policies from within his base - those religious fundamentalists who have not been bought out by the money changers and who take seriously the admonition to be stewards of the earth.

The effectiveness of the regulations that have been overturned is open to debate. I am skeptical of much of what is said by folks like the Sierra Club, but I cannot take seriously claims that an individual who dismisses virtually every practicing scientist today who believes in global warming is environmentally conscious, let alone friendly.

Besides - he has yet to make his stand on natural racehorses clear.