Bush is the best environmental President ever - Page 2

Looking, looking, still waiting for evidence... see mission statement as some sort of true proof of intent?!? Laughable... (murmurs to self, I'm sure bunge would allow me the post statements from the RNC website and consider it proof of their true motivations) looking... looking... see more repetition of unproven point.... nothing new.... nothing to add.

Nick

How is the NRDC's list of the Bush Record on the environment not comprehensive? What's missing, exactly? What major policy changes did they omit? The Bush Record is organized both chronologically and topically, the latter organization includes 6 main topics and 34 total sub-topics-- with literally hundreds of accounts, both good and bad. So again, what's missing?

You're evading my question because you can't account for the huge discrepancy between the consensus of environmental experts and yourself. What exactly makes Bush a "good" or a "quite well" or a "just fine" President on the environment? (a starkly contradictory opinion)

Hahahah, you are so funny. I already cited the lack of mention about Bush moving forward with the arsenic standard for example. You do understand that the little links you keep mentioning there are nothing more than four years of press releases right? You tell me, what is comprehensive about a press release?!?! Does it give a historical context. Does it do anything more than state what they don't like? Not really.

A perfect example is that many of the links are detailing their ongoing dissatisfaction with Bush and the roadless rule. So when did this horrible rule go into effect? January of 2001. When did Clinton issue it? On his way out the door, just like with the arsenic. Does that mean that national forests could have roads built through them for the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency? You betcha.

Yet we don't see a website informating of us of all the environmental damage that constitutes the "Clinton environmental legacy."

Now, to move on. Does Bush allow anyone to build roads however they would like? No. Does the Bush "rollback" (how can you rollback something that was never in effect?) allow state governors to petition the federal government to set up roadless areas instead of having the federal government decide what is best from thousands of miles away? Yes.

So why is the group upset? Because they don't believe that local people will have their own interests in mind I suppose. Also the biggest objection from the site itself is the possible introduction of non-native animals and plants to the area. We are not talking about environmental damage, unless of course any sort of change from pure stasis is damage. (which it is in the minds of these folks) We are talking about folks who don't even want us to have access to our own national lands for any purpose, not even to visit.

As for the "huge discrepancy between the consensus of environmental experts and myself." You've provided nothing more than a website for an issue group filled with press releases. I've asked for studies, measurements, in otherwords proof. You claim that it is so clear and obvious that it should be absolutely easy to find, yet you provide nothing.

I'm quite tired of you and bunge filibustering this topic by declaring yourself right and myself wrong via nothing more than pure repetition. Add a dash of science. It should be easy as hell to find. Show where a Bush policy made something more polluted. Not less funded than requested, or took a different timeline than desired, or has someone as the head of a department we all know is truly evil, or any other such nonsense.

This is my last post in this thread if you don't link to something other than press releases detailing disagreements. Post over and over that you are right and I am wrong. I'll just ignore it from this point forward because anyone with an ounce of sense can see that your links are flimsy press releases. If I declared Bush right on a matter by using nothing more than press releases from the NRA, Christian Coalition, or any other such group, you would be laughing yourself hysterical no matter how rightously I declared (over and over) my position to be correct.

So in otherwords post something of substance because I've got a cramp from laughing so hard at your "proof."

Nick

And what evidence have you provided that the site is anything less than what they say, much less as anti-human as you claim? None.

100% hyperbolic straw man creating drivel.

It's nearly impossible to get the proof you ask because you're asking for us to look into the future. If you can't agree that reducing the budget for the EPA will ultimately harm air quality, it's because you don't want to believe it. The EPA's most recent analysis on air quality stops in 2001.

It'll be years until we see how the quality changes because of rules that Bush has put in place or removed. But, here are a few pieces of evidence:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_kolbert


http://environmentmaine.org/envmaine.asp?id2=13069


http://ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-26-11.asp

You're wrong.

• EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates

That was pretty easy to find, Nick.

Bush Record --> Toxic Chemicals and Health --> Drinking Water --> (third from bottom, organized chronologically, I might add. Right where anyone would expect it to be.)


I'm talking about the scope of its coverage, which encompasses nearly all of the Bush administration's record on the environment. I can't quite think of any notable exceptions-- or any policy changes-- and apparently neither can you. You wanted evidence of environmental harm-- those press releases clearly provide it.

As pfflam would say: "no wanna!"

Oh, really?
I call BS. Please provide a quote with a link to source or other supporting evidence that said "folks" don't want us to have access even to visit our own national lands. You're real big on demanding "proof" from others, so if you're going to make such an outrageous accusation, I think you'd better be prepared to back it up.

They are against the building of ROADS. There's this quaint old wilderness tradition sometimes known as HIKING that allows us all the ACCESS you want - without building roads over pristine wilderness! Or, does access to pristine land not count unless you can roll in there with your SUV and your ATV on a trailer and leave lots of tire tracks?


So then you are apparently the only person posting here with an ounce of sense, as I don't see anyone else calling an environmental group's detailed analysis of Bush's environmental policies "flimsy press releases".

Declare everyone else to be too stupid to bother talking to, and your intent to take your ball and go home which will only prove yourself right, huh? Very impressive debate tactics!

Republicans blast President Bush on Environment

But of course, Nick knows more about the environment than Russell Train...

The above came from the first page of Google results for president bush environment

Big surprise - the vast majority of the found links are very critical of Bush's actions and policies regarding the environment.

I must confess, though, that the front page does contain two links to glowing reviews of his environmental policies. One is a page from georgewbush.com and the other is a page from whitehouse.gov

So you support the recent push to thin such forests to help prevent large forest fires?

Well, I'm not going to speak for hardeeharhar, but I think "thinning" sounds a lot better than "clearcutting". So yes, as a longtime SWFL resident who has seen more than enough brush fires in places like Lehigh Acres and Golden Gate, I think planned thinning to reduce fire risk is an excellent idea.

What neck of the wood are from? I did not know you were a fellow mosquito feeder.

Check your PMs...

The day the Republicans build a road through the John Muir trail so that non-hiking lazy or out-of-shape SUV driving Souza march playing "patriots" can access our wonderful California wilderness is the day Theodore Roosovelt's likeness on Mount Rushmore will crumble in shame. But that seems to be exaclty what Nick thinks "access" means.

Strangely enough your own link notes exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for proving me right.


Emissions are down, and so the criticisms are about funding, timelines and officials, exactly what I have claimed all along.

It must be so sad to be so wrong. Also please make sure you note that the nice strawman that is the thread title is not my view. I simply said Bush is doing well and is no worse than Clinton. I've not claimed he was the best environmental president ever or any such thing.

But honestly who's to say he might not be? I mean Clinton's entire environmental legacy, from arsenic to roadless rules, was created pretty much in the last 12 hours of his second term. Maybe you should wait that long to judge Bush.

Perhaps all the arsenic you drank during the Clinton years is impairing your judgement.

Nick

That's not what he said - he said, you can't prove scientifically that it is (reminds me of some of those fun Creationism discussions), or that it is getting worse as a result of Bush policies. He said you can't go by just the overwhelming opinions of scientists, environmental advocates ('cause dem's all liberal hippies!), or even Republican bureaucrats with extensive experience and expertise, because he knows better than all of them put together.

Nevermind the dozen-plus links posted (and the Google link to hundreds more) that slam the Bush enviro record, or the complete lack of postings by Nick of anyone with any kind of enviro credentials who believes that Bush has been good, OK, not so bad, or whatever.

Yeah... uh... you are so slick...


Would you care to mention which of those three national parks have no roads going to them and are only accessable by hiking? Those parks have roads built into them to facilitate public access and use. It's our land, we are supposed to be allowed to enjoy it. Of course to some even enjoyment is destroying it.

No one has suggested the extreme type of nonsense you knock down. /sarcasm Yes, supporting any road building for public access of public lands means that we want the entire park paved over. /sarcasm off.


Nick

HUH? I see only the first and shortest paragraph of what you quoted as supporting your case:
Ahh, a great non-partisan quote, that's not using cherry-picked statistics - good job, way to prove your point! Yay, Team! [/sarcasm]

The rest of your quote is supporting... well... everyone else's case. I'm glad to see you Read Before Quoting;

I dunno - it seems sadder to be so wrong, and yet so firmly convinced that you are right, because you are simply parroting the opinions^^^^^^^^gospel of those who are "Right". Yay, Team!


Ahh, yes - the remaining refuge of the retreating right-wing reactionary: "Oh, YEAH? But, CLINTON..." Strawman, strawman, who's got the strawman?... well, Nick - your strawman is the biggest one of all. From now on, I shall call it the OYBC Strawman. Next time you respond to a criticism of Bush, by trying to make a criticism of Clinton, I'll just type OYBC Strawman - wow, what a great savings of keystrokes! Thanks for the inspiration.

Damn, I drank a LOT of arsenic during the Clinton years. I used to enjoy it at this one pub a lot, I'd walk up to the bar and order an arsenic on the rocks. They served it with deep fried asbestos in mercury gravy - YUM!

Oh, what's that? Ah, you meant WATER with arsenic in it. OK, fair enough. I'm sure you''ll manage to express your thoughts more clearly next time.

So, what exactly was different about the water you drank during the Clinton years? Was it special water that only Republicans could get? Or does arsenic only damage "liberal wieners", while "right-wing nut jobs" are impervious, in This Land of ours?

One more thing - judgment is spelled with only one "e", unless you colour your spelling in the British way. My 8th grade Honors English teacher taught me that over 25 years ago, and I still remember it - I guess that makes her a hell of a teacher! You're a teacher, right? I hope Spelling and/or English (aka 'Riting) is not one of the subjects you teach

Thank you, FormerLurker, for your clearheaded and fresh analysis. Good to see you getting your PoliticalOutsider fix as well. My question I pose to Nick is the following: On what merits do you judge Bush's record on the environment? The NRDC list has every conceivable action, so you should be able to cherry-pick a few accomplishments. Oh, and thank you for admitting you were wrong about the arsenic press release. Very honest of you. Oh wait.

Edited for a dyslexic-esque jumbling of NRDC.

Thanks, ShawnJ. You should know by now how much I enjoy jumping in, especially when the lone vocal head in the sand claims he's being filibustered by a couple of people, and when the thread could use a few good Google links. Plus, the environment is something I care deeply about, and not just another topical opportunity to Bash Bush as some might believe.

Besides, while the Mac and non-political discussion over at The Other Place is pretty damn good, there is nothing like the AO/PO stuff here to keep my discussion chops nice and sharp. I for one enjoy debating politics with people who I will always have more important things in common with, such as those which drew us all to this site in the first place (right, Naples?)

I was referring to King's Canyon, which is not accessible on a day hike. Sequoia and Yosemite are both only partially accessible by road. Roads to a national park are not the same thing as roads through a national park, and no government policy would or should limit the former. However, it's my opinion that any government policy that restricts the latter (or bans it altogether) can only be a good thing for our National Park system.

Well, here's an idea.
Instead of completely reversing all protection against road-building in federally-owned pristine wilderness, and forcing a bureaucratic process of "state petitions" to protect lands that are currently protected.... How about, we leave protected land, protected, and require a state petition process to un-protect them?

Surely that would be the ultimate in local determination vs. federal, as Nick says is so important. Instead of the state bureaucracies having to act to protect, they can act to un-protect when commercial development/exploitation of resources, and/or "access" via new roads, is deemed to be beneficial to the citizens of the STATE. And of course, they will be documenting the reasons that the citizens will benefit from exploiting the land, instead of being forced to protect every piece of unexploited land by saying over and over "this is pristine and undeveloped land - a national treasure that should remain unspoiled" every time a corporate exploiter of resources wants to build a new road on pristine, public, protected land.

After all your BS about proof, this is your proof?


You're ignoring dozens of other examples where campaign officials don't disagree.

Here's a hint FL, it's called cherry-picking when you leave other statistics out. In this instance I quoted the only statistics that were mentioned in the entire article. You are welcome to post whatever statistics I didn't mention because there aren't anymore. The rest of the article does consist of criticism, but not statistics. I've stated that regardless of what you believe scientifically, criticism is not proof.

Nick

You accuse me of supporting someone blindly, yet provide no statistical evidence. Instead you provide me with "but they are mad and said so" which amounts to blind support. Again you undermine your own case because I can find the numbers in your own articles while you provide no numbers at all.



You must not understand how strawmen work. Unless of course you are saying that Clinton and his environmental legacy are so bad that they would be easy to knock down and suppose someone with only a slighly better approach, Bush. You can toss in any president you want. But somehow arguing with you that Bush is a better environmental president than say, Reagan probably wouldn't convince you because in your mind, Reagan was probably running around starting fires in rain forests because his wife's astrology told him to do so. (<-- now that is a true strawman ) You want Bush compared to a Democrat who you believe would do something different. Kerry isn't in office. So the best I can do is Clinton to show the differences in approach. Most of these rules that people are screaming about with regard to Bush did not exist for the entire eight years of Clinton's term. They were written in the last 12 hours or so via executive order and then he hit the door.


Obviously you are getting a little ticked off. Oh well that happens when all you have to support your case are criticisms instead of facts.

Nick

I stated the criteria about ten times. Go back and read.

Nick

The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access. That is why I said you point appears to portray someone wanting to pave over the entire park. That simply isn't true. You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point. Someone driving in, parking and hiking a couple miles in not the same as having to hike in from the border of the park or from even beyond that.

You should just admit that you prefer the parks be devoid of human contact and that you can tolerate the 20 people per year who will hike in from a hundred miles out to camp in a spot. (at least until the next law limits access even more) Why would you deny the public the use of their own land? Why do you hold the general public in contempt?

Nick

Read the first post of this thread. Aquatic made an assertion and asked me if this changed my mind about Bush. I've simply stated no, the flaws with what was provided, and the kind of evidence that would be convincing.

It has not been provided.

But I've not started the thread or made the assertion. If I started a thread declaring a position and personally asked you, bunge, if this changed your view. I can't turn around later and complain that you are not providing evidence. I made the assertion and asked you to change your mind. If I am doing that, I better provide the evidence.

The reason people like yourself are getting uptight though is because I've read your links and pointed out the repeated lack of any statistical evidence. It might piss you off that I do this, but just provide the statistical evidence that the environment is getting worse. Just do it. Otherwise don't participate in a thread that is asking me to change my mind.

Nick

Especially after being proven wrong about the arsenic press release, I don't believe you're in the position to tell others to "go back and read." That's certainly not the manner in which I treated you. And with all due respect, wading through your posts takes a considerable amount of energy to discern just what you're saying. But I'll try. Now, I may be wrong, but I believe you never clearly justified your opinion on Bush's environmental record beyond refusing to admit any environmental harm resulted from his policies. A quick look at the section on toxic chemicals and health under the pesticides and other toxic chemicals subcategory reveals a slew of problems on ignorning safety and health issues, reducing superfund cleanups, allowing more pollution, and tons of other issues-- just in that one little section. There are 33 other sections.

You call this moving forward or giving credit?


Sham... threatens the health of millions.... Yep I call that positivity, don't you? I call that giving credit when due. Of course the credit is for endangering millions of Americans, but hey, I'm sure they treated Clinton the same way for the entire eight years of his term. I'm sure there was no partisan slant at all. Why don't you find their press release called, Clinton endangered hundreds of millions for refusing to lower arsenic standard during entire term. Where is that press release? Oh doesn't exist.

Nick

You're wrong.

Plainly, clearly, and for all to see: you're wrong.

• EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates

Yes, it's a critical press release. Why? Because is seems the cancer factor of arsenic was traditionally underestimated-- until the end of the Clinton administration. I could be wrong about the exact time, but it doesn't appear as if anyone knew about its true toxicity until shortly before the Clinton rule change. It's a recent discovery-- not one known for the entirety of the Clinton administration. The Bush EPA knew this, thus knowingly endangering millions of people.

I'll tell you what Shawn, I'll call myself wrong on their press release because I really don't care to have you spend twenty posts arguing it. They did say Bush was going forward with the previously proposed arsenic standard...but also that he was still endangering millions and that his review was a lie and a sham. I guess I scanned that and didn't think that was giving him credit where due. If you want to call that giving him credit for lowering the arsenic standard in water, that is fine. I won't argue it because I have better things to do with my day.

Nick

I'm sorry Nick, but you're lying. I provided the links you asked for, and you're pretending I didn't.

Get over yourself and stop calling names when people disagree with you. Press releases are not proof. I looked at the other links and there were exactly what I claimed. For example the issue about power plant retrofitting definition is exactly the type of cost/timeline/etc. issue I discussed.

Again, get over yourself.

Nick

Nick,

More pollution = Bush made things worse. You asked for examples, people have given more proof than press releases. You're ignoring the truth.

The roadless rule first came up a year and a half before Clinton left office:

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/...memorandum.htm

It went through the whole long and winding federal comment process. But pretend that Clinton scribbled on a post-it note before he left office if you like.

The roadless rule only applies to the 60 million or so FS acres that have no roads in them. As in, no roads were built in them during the Clinton administration either. Yes there was road building going on during the Clinton admin in the forests. But it was in areas inventoried by the FS in the Other category. There are different categories, IRA-Roads Allowed, IRA-Roads Not Allowed, IRA-Wilderness Recommendation, Wilderness and Other (as in already has roads). The anti-environment movement would have you believe that Clinton tried to stop road building on all FS land. Not true at all. That rule stated that areas which do not yet have roads to date should be reviewed for wilderness quality and be left roadless.


Bush didn't even bother to defend the roadless rule.

Past that, you are undoubtedly aware of how he compares on designating wilderness (the only federal protection from road building) compared to past presidents including elephants like his father, Reagan, Nixon, Ford etc. It's a pitiful record.


Hello. These are the federal lands. Not state lands. Yes people thousands of miles away are often better informed on how to take care of them as they often are interested in the best and highest use for the land. As opposed to this interested in milking it for a buck and then moving on.


No one is arguing that. You think these roadless areas are all the size of the FCRONRW? Christ, at least argue on point instead of with these strawmen.

The non-native species issue is a non-issue. It's unrealistic to think it will happen but arguing that there is no logic behind the goal is just silly.


THis has nothing to do with anything. Those three parks are DOI land managed by the NPS. They never were subject to the Roadless Rule which applied to FS IRAs. One has little to do with the other. You can actually support hte roadless rule, which again has to do with FS areas with no roads in them yet, and still support roadbuilding in non-wilderness NPS land like the Yosemite Valley. The two are not mutually exclusive.


Except that they could and would since the roadless rule had nothing to do with NPS land, even non-wilderness roadless NPS land. If the NPS decided to they could have built a road from your front door right to the base of Half Dome and it would not have been in violation of the roadless rule at all.


Everyone sing along: Except that the roadless rule has nothing to do with national parks and so the rule in no way prevents what you suggest.

The NPS has a focus much more on serving people than the USFS. FS lands or IRAs more specifically, those roadless rule lands, are a different story.

Why is that not surprising?

Bold text originally posted by trumptman
The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access.
Fantastic. There are already roads leading to them and into them as far as they should. I've hiked the 10-15 miles over the rocky, snowy passes to get to the Muir trail through King's Canyon from the East, and the 15-20 miles over softer terrain from the West on many occasions. Have you? Maybe if you tried it at least once you'd realize that the access that is already there is plenty.
That is why I said you point appears to portray someone wanting to pave over the entire park.
You've said it, but you were wrong.
That simply isn't true.
I know, but what's true is still not good enough.
You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point.
Yes it is the point! It limits access, and it limits damage and it limits interference with the appreciation of nature.
Someone driving in, parking and hiking a couple miles in not the same as having to hike in from the border of the park or from even beyond that.
Yeah because someone driving, parking and hiking a couple of miles can still see the headlights at night, the pollution from exhaust, the noise, and the lack of privacy, suitable campsites being filled up, etc.
You should just admit that you prefer the parks be devoid of human contact...
Not devoid of human contact, but devoid of over-population and pollution. Yosemite is not fun for that very reason.
...and that you can tolerate the 20 people per year who will hike in from a hundred miles out to camp in a spot.
Exaggeration just makes you look even dumber.
...(at least until the next law limits access even more)
Since when have existing roads been removed to limit access more? More exaggeration.
Why would you deny the public the use of their own land?
Because too much access is the same thing as non-conservation. Why have the National Parks system at all? I bet you think the system was some democonservationistliberaltreehugger scheme to keep fat people away from the beautiful land, don't you?
Why do you hold the general public in contempt?
Because they pollute and damage the environment, no matter how you regulate them. Even the small quota of hikers who are allowed into King's Canyon leave pollution. For instance you can't drink any of the water any more because it's all full of Giardia. Imagine if people could just drive up into it...