I'll try to comment on that cut & paste without busting my gut laughing...
[/quote]I'm hot; I'm about ready to blow. Every day I read something more about Bush that just makes me more mad. Usually I try and stay pretty level-headed but I can't any more, this is a real rant. Bush is a ****ing dumb-assed money whore and anyone who voted for him needs to do their damn homework next time.[/quote]
I'm pretty much poor; though, I'm labeled as "Middle-Class". Bush's tax cuts helped.
[/quote]**** Clinton; he's not a good reason to vote for Bush. I have friends who voted Bush simply because they hated Clinton so much they couldn't vote for a man who had stood by him and not turned his back (Gore). You've sold your kids and their future because you couldn't research and THINK about what really matters. I hope you're ****ing happy. Next time, read up on the candidates environmental records and reflect that you CAN'T LIVE without the air you breath or the water you drink.[/quote]
I read up on the candididates, and I was scared to death of what Gore wanted to do.
Not what I thought he could do, but what he wanted
to do. Bush is a compromising guy who tries to bring the best of both world. That "friend" is an idiot, I agree, but I'm not going to hide why I would have voted for Bush if I was old enough at the time. I was 3 days too young to vote in 2000 (birth date: Dec. 3, 1982).
So just why am I so hot and bothered? Because I'm a ****ing eco-terrorist tree-hugger environmentalist wacko. Bullshit; I just want to have a high standard of living when I'm old. Bush is gunning for my future, trying to kill any chance we have of having anything other than ragtag groups huddled around fires built of derelict houses de-occupied in the massive die-off that's looming.
That's the biggest misinterpretation I have seen in a long time. I recommend reading
everything Bush did rather than believing whole-heartedly in what the media says.
Bad enough that Bush is asking for control over the endangered species list.
Endangered Species "control" would be a safeguard. He wants scientists to find a way to increase reproduction. He doesn't want personal control, from what I've seen, read, and all else.
Do you know Bush wants to cut the energy conservation budget by over twenty million? He's an oil guy, the more oil we use the more he makes. Never mind that we are ****ING RUNNING OUT OF OIL. What are you going to do when the liquid your society is BUILT on is gone or yields are low and it's expensive? Can you think of ANY facet of your life that isn't dependant on oil? WHY don't we try and cut our usage and extend the amount of time we have oil to use while we search for the next source of energy?
According to a bill
Bush wrote, we won't even need the "conservation budget" in twenty years. Why? Simply put, he is pushing scientists to find the best, safest, and least pollution creating fuel out there. Where does this guy make his stuff up? He obviously can't read, and he can barely write.
Not only that, but Bush wants to cut funding for research into renewable energy by 26 percent. That's NINETY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS. You ever hear the phrase an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? We have over 260 million people in the US and EVERY kilowatt we save makes a difference. But Bush doesn't see it that way; he's only thinking of himself and his buddies.
The government should never interfere with companies or research, and that includes funding. If these places want funding, I would rather give it to them directly rather than through the government. I don't trust the government with my money. GIVE IT BACK!! Well, unless you're paying for military or intelligence.
On to clean air, which I'm going to use to encompase clean air, water, soil, etc. Bush actually increases the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by 14 million. But enforcement is shifted from the EPA to the states, which get 25 million spread between all fifty states. That's $500,000 for each state, which is what, seven or eight workers if the operating exepenses aren't included. LUDICROUS!
The federal government's job is the safety and welfare of the nation, and the state government's job is the health and safety of it's citizens. The states need smarter use of money, not more.
Bush has more than a casual disregaurd for the environment; this is a professional one. He wants to ignore evidence of environmental damage and the growing proof of global warming; in his mind nothing is as important as the US economy today and tomorrow. Who cares a **** about today's economy if only a couple ragtag groups are around twenty years from now to remember it? Do you really think you are immune from weather pattern shifts? What happens when the jetstream takes on a new pattern? Will the midwest become a desert? Could the Sacramento valley turn into a flood plain? We don't know, and Bush seems hell-bent to find out.
That's what we call unfounded.
The solution is NOT more production; it is far more economical to conserve and not use as much. But conservation doesn't earn him or his buddies money, so he's against it. I got an opinion of my own Bush, and I'm expressing it to you right here: supposed to be picture of middle finger you will see on website:
http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/bush_environment.htm" The bit in bold was written by me obviously. If you can fight this off then ill just post more and more and more.
I can...barely hold off laughing here. I love how people use unfounded remarks and research to back up their arguments when even the best scientists don't know if global warming is evne occuring. They've found evidence, in fact, that the Earth has, get this, safeguards from heating up. The ozone layer is not the only thing that protects us. We also have a HUGE ocean that converts more corbon dioxide to oxygen than all if the Earth was covered completely with forest. We have clouds, precipitation, and we have a lot more.
They have even found that the Earth has a "cycle" that could very well last centuries. The cycle seems to heat up over the course of ten years; then record colds take hold at the begining of a new cycle. NONE OF THIS IS PROVEN!! I'm talking about either "global warming" or "warming cycles".
