Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactHome | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactI'll try to respond the best I can. First I am not a Bush crony, in fact I am very upset with the boy. I am a conservative, the problem as I see it with liberals and in particular the environmental crowd is they propose few real alternatives to the every day necessities of the American People. For instance, you bring up deforestation. I find it humorous, especially in California, that there are all of these so called environmentalists that are screaming about cutting down the trees, but at the same moment, they are building their 7,000 (or larger) square foot home. Wanna talk about hypocrisy a moment? "Don't cut the trees, well unless it is wood for my house!" Another thing about California, everyone in this state is screaming about off shore drilling here. At the same time, everyone in this state is so locked into their cars it is ridiculous. You could give them a train that would pick them up at their door and drop them off at their work and they would still drive their cars. The mentality as I see it is they are simply too good to be seen in public transportation, that is for the homeless to get around. So where is all of this oil going to come from? Do we want to keep funding the terrorists of the world by buying it from the middle east? Something has to give. Carbon Dioxide? That is an interesting notion, I never fully understood the concern for carbon dioxide. If I remember correctly from the 9th grade biology class I failed, Carbon Dioxide is released by every living animal on earth. It has to be this way because the plants use this carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen for us to use. Seems logical to me, so if carbon dioxide is being released from vehicles then would that not be a good thing? The plants and trees would have plenty to breath at that point. I guess we should also outlaw dry ice, paintball guns and pellet guns, and everything else that uses CO2 to power something. How about those little spray cans that you use to clean your keyboard with? All of those things use CO2 and release it into the atmosphere. I was always under the impression that it was fluorocarbons that were causing global warming. That was why we outlawed aerosol so many years ago. Carbon monoxide might certainly be a problem, but we are making great end roads to eliminating a lot of that from vehicle emissions. I think government is in a great position to lead the country in this area and something that I am disappointed with Bush about. One thing the government should do is mandate that all fleet vehicles that travel less than 300 miles per day all be electric. This would make postal carriers, zone enforcement officers, all electric. I think this would go a long way to getting electric vehicles more accepted by the general public. _____ From: EMAIL:PROTECTED [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodsmall, Ryan (IATS) Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:39 AM To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Conservationism (was: The Day After Tomorrow) To say Bush's "compassionate conservativism" is about conservation anymore is a joke. To say it's even conservative is joke. True conservatives (which I hope you are, Vernon :) would have to visit a chiropractor for months to remedy the problems that would arrise when their heads spin completely around, 360 degrees. I'm not a greenie by any means, but Bush's gaffes are absolutely incredible. Teddy Roosevelt was a real conservationist, and Bush says that 'ol Teddy is his hero. However, he's most likely spinning in his grave right now: George W. Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto agreement, saying that we would come up with some abstract "better thing;" nothing has been proposed so far. Carbon dioxide is one of the major contributors to the (possibly imaginary) global warming problem. It's also a major pollutant in its own right, considering how liberal we have become with our deforestation. http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator5.htm George W. Bush's "Clear Skies" initiatives allow 50% more sulfur dioxide, 36% more nitrogen oxide and 200% more mercury emissions than the Clean Air Amendments signed by his father. Bush also refused to place a cap (at all) on any localized mercury emissions. Watch out next time you eat sushi... http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish/ (from the EPA, the once "grand liberal" agency that has been overrun by power industry representatives' lobbyists) George W. Bush has ignored advice and protest from his own party regarding environmental and conservation matters. Virtually every Republican politician in California opposes drilling for oil off the coast of their state, but Bush wants to do more drilling. As evidenced at http://www.rep.org/opinions/op-eds/20.html, there are quite a few truly conservative conservationists angry at what Bush is doing. George W. Bush and friends picked Carl Michael Smith, a veteran of the oil industry, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy. His role, in his own words, is "how to best utilize taxpayer dollars to the benefit of the industry." The oil industry. He's not looking out for us, only his old cronies. http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/5/mcintyre-r.html (admittedly liberal slant, but there are some prime quotes). The Al Gore thing to which you refer is probably a speech here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A 30435-2002Apr22¬Found=true> &node=&contentId=A30435-2002Apr22¬Found=true Clinton screwed up and didn't push his party for legislation fast enough - they waited almost all 8 years before lowering the acceptable arsenic rate (to one fifth of what it is now) on Clinton's way out. Gore would have upheld the decision and said as much. Bush pushed back the date another 4 to 8 years (estimates). Here's a good (Republican) article on the whole thing: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22673 It was a screw-up on Clinton's part to wait, and Al Gore, being the tree-hugger he is, decided that waiting was no longer an option. So, I hope everyone that's really a conservationist will do a little further research and look at some of the legislation and policies that are in the works or have been passed, or at least check out the backgrounds of the nominees to environmental/conservation agencies. It's enough to make my head spin. Not that Clinton was much better. ryan woodsmall EMAIL:PROTECTED _____ From: EMAIL:PROTECTED on behalf of F Vernon Green Sent: Wed 6/2/2004 12:42 AM To: 'MLUG Off-Topic Discussion' Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The Day After Tomorrow I case you were wondering I call myself a republican, but mostly I am conservative. I think conservation is a better way to go. We know that we have to have things made by companies and in the US companies provide jobs. We need to provide a climate where companies can do what they do, create jobs. That does not preclude laws against pollution. I think to say that republicans want to have dirty water and air is a ridiculous statement (credited to Al Gore by the way).
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ discussion mailing list EMAIL:PROTECTED http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion