or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush is the best environmental President ever
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush is the best environmental President ever - Page 4

post #121 of 145
Thread Starter 
Oh and I read now in the newspaper that every state now except Hawaii and Alaska have advisory against eating freshwater fish because of mercury contamination.

Information here http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/

Remember, according to Nick "No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion."

Hey Nick where are those links with Bush doing good things for the environment? (or anything...)
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #122 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Oh and I read now in the newspaper that every state now except Hawaii and Alaska have advisory against eating freshwater fish because of mercury contamination.

Information here http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/

Remember, according to Nick "No one, REPEAT, no one has produced any bit of evidence the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion."

Hey Nick where are those links with Bush doing good things for the environment? (or anything...)

No one has produced any bit of evidene the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion UNDER BUSH.

I really hate when people change the question. Note the thread title. The EPA, according to your links has been issuing these advisories for thirteen years.

You should also read your own links a bit better.

Quote:
The largest single source of human-caused emissions in the US is coal-fired power plants. The Bush Administration is the first administration ever to propose a regulation to reduce these mercury emissions. We are on track to finalize this regulation, called the Clean Air Mercury Rule, on or before March 15, 2005.

I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

All you've shown me is that you are willing to ignore work done by Bush. I don't care how you care to partally or misquote me. All I've ever asked for is proof the environment is getting worse under a Bush administration. You've just provided me with proof and a policy that will make it better.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #123 of 145
MEH.

post #124 of 145
Thread Starter 
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush. The fucking ROADLESS rule for one you dunce. Last time I checked, our population was increasing the last four years, cities were sprawling, trees were being cut down, carrying capacities exceeded. Bush has done nothing good environmentally. Please link if he has. My point is, under John Kerry or another Democrat, it would certainly degrade at a slower rate, if not improve in certain areas. They wouldn't do what Bush did to the "Clean Skies" and Clean Water act. He'd probably put a scientist in charge of the EPA and the EPA would probably manage fisheries, decrease harvesting rates below carrying capacities, other administrations would do what they could to reduce sprawl in the face of population growth, etc. What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check. Overpopulation is the root of every single problem on the face of this Earth. Every problem I can think of. Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #125 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

Nick

Remember, Google is your friend (unless of course you are attempting to spread misinformation):

http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/27/mercury_fish.htm
http://www.ospolitics.org/healthenv/...one_trout_.php
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/c...reat_lakes.htm
Quote:
the Bush Administration proposed a major rollback of the mercury pollution reduction goals adopted by the Clinton EPA, which will result in much higher levels of mercury pollution over a more prolonged period, increasing the risk of fish contamination.

http://powermarketers.netcontentinc....ct%3EEvbfej%5B!
Quote:
The Clinton administration had wanted to declare mercury a toxic substance and require the use of modern controls to restrict the pollutant at 500 coal plants across the country. The end result would have been a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions but the plan was scuttled by the Bush administration.

http://www.nylcv.org/ecopolitics/win...rticles/03.htm
Quote:
EPA Eases Mercury Regulations as FDA Issues Mercury Warnings
In December 2000, the EPA concluded that mercury emissions from power plants were a hazardous pollutant that should be controlled under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which mandated adopting the "maximum available control technology (MACT)."

Until recently, the EPA was on track to propose the MACT rule by Dec. 15, 2003, but, after facing fierce opposition industry, the White House and the EPA are rescinding the December 2000 ruling and reversing the Clinton administration's finding in favor of a more flexible enforcement system.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mercury17.html
Quote:
EPA let industry dictate policy on mercury, some staffers contend
Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed the agency's professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.
Mercury was on the agenda at a staff meeting last spring at EPA headquarters presided over by Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer who represented industry interests on air-pollution issues before Bush appointed him to run the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Several of the staff members said they expected to discuss plans to carry out comparative studies of proposals to reduce mercury emissions. The studies, which had been requested by the federal advisory panel, were designed to examine the impact of mercury regulation on energy markets, electricity prices and public health.
But William Wehrum, a senior adviser to Holmstead who also represented industry clients before joining the Bush administration, told the dozen or so employees that comparative studies would be postponed indefinitely.
"I was floored," one participant said. "We pointed out that the studies were required ... that the data runs were promised to a federal advisory committee."
Holmstead did not respond to the expressions of concern, participants said. "There was an awkward silence," one recalled.
After the meeting, two staff members said, Holmstead informed them the studies would not be conducted partly because of "White House concern."
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #126 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
No one has produced any bit of evidene the environment is actually getting worse in any fashion UNDER BUSH.

I really hate when people change the question. Note the thread title. The EPA, according to your links has been issuing these advisories for thirteen years.

You should also read your own links a bit better.



I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

All you've shown me is that you are willing to ignore work done by Bush. I don't care how you care to partally or misquote me. All I've ever asked for is proof the environment is getting worse under a Bush administration. You've just provided me with proof and a policy that will make it better.

Nick

Im not going to call you stupid but the world is in a population explosion and burning more Oil then at anytime in history. what comes from burning oil? what comes from clearing rain forests and cutting trees for homes, what are all those SUVS pushing out their tailpipes? and what president has encourage more SUV purchases with tax breaks, Dubya did. mercury is a poison,its in the fish and where did it come from?Polluters, who is easing all the enviroment pollution restrictions? Dubya, who is letting more pesticides float around Dubya......Dubya, Dubya buddy to the polluters and millionaires and screwer of the common people. take off your republican glasses and wake up.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #127 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I guess Clinton didn't propose or care about mercury in fish for his entire eight year term because he did nothing about it.

Oh, Nick.



Just like Clinton "didn't care" about arsenic in water, right?



Check out the paragraph above the one you quoted.



Quote:
Regulations were issued in the 1990s to control mercury emissions for burning waste. In addition actions to limit the use of mercury, most notably Congressional action to limit the use of mercury in batteries, and EPA regulatory limits on the use of mercury in paint contributed to the reduction of mercury emissions from waste combustion during the 1990s by reducing the mercury content of waste. More recent regulation, including limiting mercury emissions from chlorine production facilities that use mercury cells and regulation of industrial boilers, will further reduce emissions of mercury when they become effective in the next few years.

That's just silly for you to have missed that.
post #128 of 145
Nick is hiding behind the fact that the effects of environmental travesty usually take years to show.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #129 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Nick is hiding behind the fact that the effects of environmental travesty usually take years to show.

"Effects" meaning, we can't leave the house without a haz-mat suit and air supply? Caring about anything else would just be "kneejerk liberal whining" of course...
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #130 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush. The fucking ROADLESS rule for one you dunce.

You can call me a dunce. I'll call you a shithead. Are we square now?

Quote:
Last time I checked, our population was increasing the last four years, cities were sprawling, trees were being cut down, carrying capacities exceeded. Bush has done nothing good environmentally.

You complain about the population. Is Kerry going to do anything about immigration? Is going to outlaw having sex now? Cities are sprawling because the population is increasing, mostly due to legal and illegal immigration. Kerry is no different than Bush in that regard. Are we somehow going to stop printing books and newspapers, making furniture, or using wood under Kerry?

Now here's one for ya. Kery raises the CAFE standards for SUV's. This would probably have a net effect of driving consumers to... Japanese cars, just as it has done everytime we have had gas price shocks and raised the standard. Why does this happen? Because the Japanese make many more (and heck, I'll say it, better)sedans while the U.S. companies make many more SUV's and trucks. When we suddenly have GM for example unable to maintain UAW wages, pension and health benefit obligations because of lost sales due to redesigns, attempts to pound into the sedan market against very strong Japanese sales there while at the same time dealing with huge issues or possible just lost sales or inability to makes sales in the area where they were strong, how will this all go over?

How will Kerry keep up his rhetoric on not exporting jobs, or keeping good jobs, etc when U.S. companies are going belly up to the Japanese for no other reason than a change in laws under Kerry?

Quote:
My point is, under John Kerry or another Democrat, it would certainly degrade at a slower rate, if not improve in certain areas. They wouldn't do what Bush did to the "Clean Skies" and Clean Water act. He'd probably put a scientist in charge of the EPA and the EPA would probably manage fisheries, decrease harvesting rates below carrying capacities, other administrations would do what they could to reduce sprawl in the face of population growth, etc.

I don't recall us not having sprawl, not using trees, or even raising the CAFE standards under Clinton. Most of the actions we debate about Clinton attempting or issuing executive orders about (like arsenic for example) he was sued into action over. Why would I believe Kerry to be any better when I've not seen him addressing population control at all via immigration?

Quote:
What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.

You would like to see an authoritarian regime enforce mandatory abortions against the will of the woman carrying them?

And you portray my views as extreme? China is beyond extreme with their population control measures.

Quote:
What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.

Population control wouldn't be a problem in the U.S. if we enforced our immgration policies and also simply stopped immigration for a period of years. The native population of the United States has done it's part. They actually have a population rate that is below a sustaining level. It is raise to and above the level by immigration. We both know that countries like Japan and also most of Europe are expected to have their populations decrease in the following decades. But what good will it do if they have to let in the whole third world in some attempt to fund their retirement and pension obligations?

Quote:
Every problem I can think of. Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.

I don't believe in any credits that allow you to be paid money you haven't paid into the system. Both the child tax credit and earned income tax credit allow you to take out "credit" that you never paid in. I've never seen a Democrat take a stand against the EITC and I doubt any of them would against the child tax credit either since it they are both forms of income redistribution. So again, I don't see how electing Kerry would change that.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #131 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh, Nick.



Just like Clinton "didn't care" about arsenic in water, right?



Check out the paragraph above the one you quoted.





That's just silly for you to have missed that.

I didn't miss it. I probably should have put /sarcasm in front of it though. The point was that if you aren't shown to have done "enough" then you don't "care" about the environment.

Sorry if the tone didn't come through well enough.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #132 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't miss it. I probably should have put /sarcasm in front of it though. The point was that if you aren't shown to have done "enough" then you don't "care" about the environment.

Sorry if the tone didn't come through well enough.

Nick

Oh, I see that now.

My fault!

Good thing I didn't come out with GUNS A'BLAZIN!
post #133 of 145
Nick, what was that about Clinton, mercury levels and Bush?

I've never seen anyone shut down more solidly about anything on these forums ever.

Admit that you were wrong. I'll take silence as an admission. Of course, you'll try to change the subject and ignore the question.

Actually, this issue is such a clear indication of the environmental harm the Bush administration has cause that I think it wshould be sent to the media. Seriously.

Hey, guys (bunge et al), let's do the research and get this story on 60 minutes. I know we're smart enough to do it.

"Rising mercury levels in our supply of fish". Next on 60 Minutes.

Just in time for the election.
post #134 of 145
And of course Bush proposed reductions in mercury output for coal fired plants. Coal is not oil and Bush is a one fuel kind of guy.
post #135 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Nick, what was that about Clinton, mercury levels and Bush?

I've never seen anyone shut down more solidly about anything on these forums ever.

Admit that you were wrong. I'll take silence as an admission. Of course, you'll try to change the subject and ignore the question.

Actually, this issue is such a clear indication of the environmental harm the Bush administration has cause that I think it wshould be sent to the media. Seriously.

Hey, guys (bunge et al), let's do the research and get this story on 60 minutes. I know we're smart enough to do it.

"Rising mercury levels in our supply of fish". Next on 60 Minutes.

Just in time for the election.

I'm not clear on your point Tonton. I don't try to ignore people on here. I post as often as I can. But being the "token" conservative means that the twenty of you to one of me can have the effect of an occasional point being overlooked or even thought that I addressed it via someone else.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #136 of 145
Thread Starter 
Quote:
take off your republican glasses and wake up.



Don't forget, they turn things in to black and white too!

OK Nick I should have been more specific. Or maybe you are being disingenuous with your Republican glasses.
Quote:
You would like to see an authoritarian regime enforce mandatory abortions against the will of the woman carrying them?

And you portray my views as extreme? China is beyond extreme with their population control measures.

NO. Don't be absurd. I support the women's right to choose.

Here's what I said and I guess you didn't see it so I'll cut and paste just for you. The rest of the class can skip to the next chapter.

Quote:
Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.

People with more kids should pay more taxes. Period. If you don't have the money, don't have the kids. If you do, maybe we should deport you. You seem to be big on that. And while we're on that topic of immigration/deportation, you obviously don't get where I'm coming from even though it was crystal clear in my last post.
Quote:
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush.

What does the statement "we are all connected" mean to you. I meant the whole planet, not just America. You are being subtly and perhaps even unknowingly racist when you suggest we should only care about our environment. Screw poor people, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, etc. Oh and wait, it gets better. Thanks to your lot (the ol' GOP) we are committing genocide. Right here in America! How are those Native Americans doing on reservations with nuclear waste, Army ammo and testing, dioxins, and everything else we don't want in our pretty, WASPy little suburbs. For perspective, go out, take a walk, look at all the litter, and come back and post your thoughts.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #137 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
being the "token" conservative

I rather think of you as the "tokin' conservative"
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #138 of 145
I agree with a "brood tax" for large families.

Up to three kids: Standard deductions for each.

Fourth kid: no more deductions.

Sixth kid: Brood tax.

I'm not a welfare liberal when it comes to family planning. We're already overpopulated.
post #139 of 145
Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #140 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I rather think of you as the "tokin' conservative"



I'll use that line elsewhere if you don't mind!
post #141 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.

nononononononononononononono.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #142 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Screw all the deductions. Flat tax. No other taxes.

Yeah. Right.
post #143 of 145
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Yeah. Right.

well sure, why not? A family making $30,000 can afford to pay 25% of their income just as easily as a family making $300,000, right?
errr...
wait, maybe NOT
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #144 of 145
But actually, with all of the deductions for the rich, and with high sales taxes, a flat tax might not hurt the middle class at all. Think about it. With deductions and tax shelters, most super rich don't end up paying high taxes at all.

Sales tax is the greatest burden on the poor and middle classes, though. Property tax doesn't help, either.

But a flat tax would definitely hurt the poor. I'm not talking about the families that earn $30,000. I'm talking about the families that earn $15,000. In fact, it doesn't make sense for those families to work at all, as they'd be earning a higher overall income on welfare. Under $20,000 should definitely not have to pay any taxes, ever. Even sales tax.

Except for luxury tax, of course.

High ticket, non-essential items should always be taxed. But not food. Or toilet paper. Or soap. You know what I mean.
post #145 of 145
[OT]Sorry folks. A 'flat tax' to me doesn't necessarily mean 15% across the board. Call it what ever you like, but you're right, the tax would have to be graded. My point was to get rid of deductions and the tax code mess. [/OT]
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush is the best environmental President ever