PDA

View Full Version : Bush (the president)


jimiforpres
12-10-2005, 06:20 PM
Do you support Bush?

jimiforpres
12-10-2005, 06:23 PM
Personally, I hate him and think that he is one of the worst president we have ever had. i didn't really like Kerry, but anyone besides Buch pretty much.

FedererUberAlles
12-11-2005, 03:46 AM
This is a total waste. It will just end up in a flame war.

tnig469
12-11-2005, 08:28 AM
i really dont like Bush and his methods...but i mean we really cant do anything until we way for him 2 completely screw up or wait until 2008

Docalex007
12-11-2005, 09:20 AM
Bush is your average politician. I do not care so much for Bush as a leader of the most powerful country in the world. But I must say that I believe he will be recognized as a great man (i know, its hard to swallow) when its all said and done. That may be 100 years from now, I don't know. But he will be recognized as the one who invaded iraq which was the first major event to shape the then 2100 middle east scene.

The world will be getting closer and closer to planetary unification in several hundred years. Look at Europe. Soon Europe will become officially "one"...maybe in 50 years or so. I think on down the road, what we are doing in iraq will only benefit our children's children's children....not us. So it is with us this burden lies. Somebody's gotta start it....

I'm also ****ed that he won't sign the Kyoto protocol. Damn man. Lets cut back on emissions folks. You Americans out there need to get at your local politicians, put pressure on environmentals to put pressure on politicians, whatever, just do it!

atatu
12-11-2005, 01:54 PM
Sorry Doca, I have to disagree with you. Your ideas about global unification are nice, but not grounded in reality. At the moment, France, for example, doesn't seem particularly unified. If anything, what Bush has done has resulted in dividing the world even more. The relationship between the US and Western Europe, for example is worse now that in many years.

Morpheus
12-11-2005, 04:15 PM
Planetary unification will not happen until the globe is encircled by aliens. I wonder who our spokesperson will be...Bush?! I hope the alien laser beams are painless...

tonyjh63
12-11-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm almost in total agreement with W, except for his stance on immigration. I think we really need to shut our southern border down, and quit all this talk of amnesty. ( I know, the Bush administration isn't calling it amnesty, but that's what it really amounts to. A rose by any other name...)
I'm also damn proud of him for NOT signing the Kyoto treaty. Why should the industrialized nations cut back on their manufacturing (environmentalists like to call it polution) if China and India are exempt from the treaty's restrictions? It would just hamstring the Western industrialized nations, without cutting back on overall world-wide polution. I've also noticed that the U.S. is certainly not alone in refusing to sign the treaty. Btw, both democRATS and Republicans rejected that treaty when it came down to a vote.

FedererUberAlles
12-11-2005, 04:42 PM
I'm almost in total agreement with W, except for his stance on immigration. I think we really need to shut our southern border down, and quit all this talk of amnesty. ( I know, the Bush administration isn't calling it amnesty, but that's what it really amounts to. A rose by any other name...)
I'm also damn proud of him for NOT signing the Kyoto treaty. Why should the industrialized nations cut back on their manufacturing (environmentalists like to call it polution) if China and India are exempt from the treaty's restrictions? It would just hamstring the Western industrialized nations, without cutting back on overall world-wide polution. I've also noticed that the U.S. is certainly not alone in refusing to sign the treaty. Btw, both democRATS and Republicans rejected that treaty when it came down to a vote.

Hahahaha, what excellent satire.

arky-tennis
12-11-2005, 05:40 PM
tonyjh63, what is your age? I am not inferring that you are a minor but I would like to know how to properly counter your statement. Thanks,

Daniel

atatu
12-12-2005, 07:07 AM
I'm almost in total agreement with W, except for his stance on immigration. I think we really need to shut our southern border down, and quit all this talk of amnesty. ( I know, the Bush administration isn't calling it amnesty, but that's what it really amounts to. A rose by any other name...)
I'm also damn proud of him for NOT signing the Kyoto treaty. Why should the industrialized nations cut back on their manufacturing (environmentalists like to call it polution) if China and India are exempt from the treaty's restrictions? It would just hamstring the Western industrialized nations, without cutting back on overall world-wide polution. I've also noticed that the U.S. is certainly not alone in refusing to sign the treaty. Btw, both democRATS and Republicans rejected that treaty when it came down to a vote.

If we shut the border down, who do you think is going to do all the manual labor we need done on a day to day basis ? Are you going to go out there and work all day doing manual labor for $8/hr ? I doubt it.

Docalex007
12-12-2005, 08:04 AM
First of all, to you who agrees of not signing the Kyoto Protocol, why should the US (being leader of emissions pollution) not sign? How could you use the excuse of well, China is exempt from the expectations so why should we join? Shouldn't the US be a leader and not a follower? If not signing Kyoto....why not put major restrictions and taxes on people who continue to not give a damn about energy conservation and pollution. The whole world sees Americans as driving massive four wheel drive gas sucking machines to drive their kids to school in the morning. Don't worry, that time is coming soon when its time to ride more bikes and turn off that light in the bedroom.

Secondly, I do believe in planetary unification. Is it just me or what because I notice the peoples of the world are becoming more and more "unattached" to their country and more attached to global awareness. This comes from people being educated so they can understand. Look at the people of China. Those villagers are stepping up to the communistic gov't and propagating democracy throughout the country.

Your average educated world citizen wants to unite....its only with the politicians that they hold grudges with. For example, Europeans hating Bush.....but only the Administration. They personally have nothing against the people of the nation....except that they voted the admin. again.

By the way, to say the world will be in one state or another in say 400-500 years would be impossible to predict. But if current trends hold true, we will either be totally wiped out as a human race or we will have found the ideal situation of having a global unification....since we'll need it when ET comes along and wants to fight....where we will be highly out technologicalized. :cool:

jaskey
12-12-2005, 09:06 AM
i heard that Bush admin doesn't want to sign the kyoto protocol because it's a global promise... thing, for the lack of a better word. Bush admin claims that they would like to make one on one treaty in everything, and kyoto protocol goes against that.

now, what would be the major difference from creating treaties with a group to creating treaties one on one... i would think that Bush admin would black mail, threaten, and flex the US muscles and force other nations to do their bidding, in a way that can not be done out in the open in groups. that is the worst case possible. or maybe Bush admin has none of that in mind and just decided to ignor(?) the unity that nations has formed and threaten to break that little unity they have gained by going one on one with each countries.

just quick thoughts that went through my mind when i read an article.

ChicagoJack
12-14-2005, 09:49 AM
.
No, I do not support President Bush. Because, among other things, I prefer clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. (post #1)

Clearing the Air--Why I quit Bush's Environmental Protection Agency.
By Eric Schaeffer
Washington Monthly
July/August 2002

“As director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement since 1997, I helped to bring lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. The post-election settlement with Cinergy and Dominion was a landmark, pressuring other companies to follow suit and clean up their act as well.

Unfortunately, Washington's energy lobbyists understood this dynamic all too clearly. And when President Bush assumed office, they wasted little time blocking this new momentum toward cleaner air by persuading the administration that the problem wasn't the polluters, but our anti-pollution laws. It wasn't a hard sell. The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.” [continued]
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0207.schaeffer.html

[..]

Statement of Eric Schaeffer
Before the Senate Environment and Judiciary Committees
July 16, 2002
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Schaeffer_071602.htm

[..]

Personal Opinion: Kyoto, Schmoto....weakening the Clean Air Act was Bush's ugly little payoff to the Oil, Chemical & Utilities industry at the expense of public health.

DJ Edwards
12-14-2005, 10:18 AM
If the two were to play a best two out of three set match for a million pounds of marijuana and 1/2 ownership in the Miller Brewing Company, who do you think would win: Bush or Kerry?
What if the semis were this
Clinton v Limbaugh
Bush v Kerry
Who would you like in the final?

Rory G
12-14-2005, 05:49 PM
Other than Bush being the worst President in our nation's history (by far)...yeah, he's not bad:mrgreen:

ChicagoJack
12-14-2005, 06:29 PM
.

No, I do not support President Bush. Because, among other things, I prefer clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. (post #2)

[..]

George W. Bush & Air Pollution as Texas Governor

“You’ve got to ask the question, is the air cleaner since I became Governor? And the answer is yes.”
– George W. Bush, May 1999

When the Texas Clean Air Act went into effect in 1971 it established certain standards for petrochemical plants, that produced the majority of Texas’ air pollution. The act, however, would only affect plants built after 1971; a loophole that was left in place to allow plants already in existence a few years to come into compliance with the law. The exemption was originally meant to last three or four years. Nearly 3 decades later the loopholes remained open, and the 850 plants still benefiting from it were causing Texas to become the nations leading air polluter. Pressure to regulate these plants was mounting from environmental groups as well as regular citizens because Texas’ air was getting worse and worse and all of Texas’ major cities were close to being declared in “nonattainment” of EPA standards. By 97, The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) finally decided that something needed to be done about these grandfathered plants, and was getting set to close the loopholes. Unfortunately for Texas, the plants that would have been affected also happened to be some of Bush’s biggest financial supporters.  Bush had received contributions from all of the top 100 polluters among grandfathered plants. Every single one had given Bush some sort of contribution or another for a total of $1.1 million since 1993.

It’s not surprising, that the mandatory plan never made it into law. As TNRCC prepared to act, industry got wind and let Bush know that it was not pleased. Bush’s environmental director warned him that industry was concerned that TNRCC was “moving too quickly.”  So Bush clobbered TNRCC’s plan and suggested they replace it with a voluntary program. Now remember, these plants had 26 years to upgrade to meet the Clean Air Act’s standards, yet Bush decided to make their participation in any new plan voluntary.  What’s worse is that he decided that, instead of TNRCC, the polluters themselves should be allowed to write the plan. So, in early 1997, Bush’s people held secret, closed-door meetings with executives of the oil, chemical and natural gas industries (Exxon and Marathon) then invited them to draft their own plan. Not suprisingly, the compliance rate has been poor. Of the 850 plants only 74 have volunteered and only three have actually reduced emissions. That bears repeating.  Bush managed to keep 847 plants from doing a single thing to reduce their toxic emissions. And all for a measly couple of million dollars.

Opinion: Allowing Texas’ worst polluters to write their own clean-up plan may be the most glaring example of Bush putting big industry (and big contributors) first over Texas’ citizens and its environment, but it is far from the only one. Bush has gone to bat for the oil, gas and chemical industries many times. 

[..]......................


George W. Bush & Air Pollution as President

The Bush administration developed a plan called the Clear Skies Initiative and submitted it to Congress in February 2003 as a proposal to amend the Clean Air Act, which is the primary federal law governing air quality. “But "Clear Skies Initiative" is a clear misnomer, because the result will be to weaken and delay health protections already required under the law. Bush's Clear Skies legislation sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants. But these targets are weaker than those that would be put in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law. Compared to current law, the Clear Skies plan would allow three times more toxic mercury emissions, 50 percent more sulfur emissions, and hundreds of thousands more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. It would also delay cleaning up this pollution by up to a decade compared to current law and force residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait years longer for clean air compared to the existing Clean Air Act. The president has also used his authority over the Environmental Protection Agency to undermine a key part of the Clean Air Act -- called New Source Review -- that Congress enacted to control pollution from the country's oldest and dirtiest power plants and factories. In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to strengthen pollution controls, but did not require plants already in existence to meet the new standards, expecting that these plants would soon be retired and replaced with newer, cleaner plants. As a safeguard, however, the law included the New Source Review provision, which requires that if an older plant undergoes changes that increase its emissions, it must also install modern air pollution controls. Without New Source Review, much of the nation's industrial base -- power plants, chemical plants, incinerators, iron and steel foundries, paper mills, cement plants, and a broad array of manufacturing facilities -- would be excluded from modern clean air requirements.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan.asp

Bottom line: By 2018, the Clear Skies Act would allow 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury than what would be allowed by simply enforcing the already existing Clean Air Act.

-Jack

MegacedU
12-14-2005, 06:53 PM
Political forums are all over the net. I like GWB and I don't need to sort through insults while I'm discussing tennis.

Docalex007
12-15-2005, 08:19 AM
Political forums are all over the net. I like GWB and I don't need to sort through insults while I'm discussing tennis.

Its the off season and its in odds and ends. Goodbye.

Docalex007
12-15-2005, 08:27 AM
.

Bottom line: By 2018, the Clear Skies Act would allow 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury than what would be allowed by simply enforcing the already existing Clean Air Act.

-Jack

Yeah, I guess Bush is a fan of smog and acid rain.

Hmmm, Bush's goal for the US.....
http://home.att.net/~larvaluebug/smog.jpg

MonkeyPox
12-15-2005, 08:35 AM
I thought Kerry would have been a good president. Any American that didn't vote for him had best not be complaining now. The worst kind of whiner is a non-voter. The lamest of the lame.

That said, I would imagine that being president is not an easy task and I have to say that I think Bush follows his convictions, especially when it comes to spreading Democracy in the world. I don't happen to agree with his methods, or his lack of intelligence, but he seem to have a decent heart. And being an American, he is my president and in that sense, I support him.

ChicagoJack
12-15-2005, 08:45 AM
Political forums are all over the net. I like GWB and I don't need to sort through insults while I'm discussing tennis.

Hi Meg, yes there are political forums all over the net. And I left them all for good, over the same issue you mention. Personally, I always have done my best, to respect the opposing view but have occasionally failed at my personal commitment in this regard. Was also taking too much time away from my family time and my leisure time. I poke my head into the two or three forums is used to hang at, every blue moon or so. It's the same 40 people arguing over the same 10 issues going on 5 years now. Makes one kind of wonder what the point is. Even though Ive sought a more positive and less serious place to hang my hat here, the topic seems to have followed me to my new door step.

As I've said before, Ds are sick of GWB, and Rs are sick of hearing their twice elected President being constantly tarred and feathered by the Dems. Both sides have good reason to feel justifiably angry. Considering other alternatives, my feeling is that blogging is one of the more healthy ways to vent, express opinion, or engage those with differing views in a the seemingly lost art of freindly debate. Politics is visceral, emotional stuff. Always has been always will be. If you have no room for the occasional insult, then I suggest you stay out of the political threads entirely. This thread can be clearly identified as such, never mind that it IS properly located in the odds and ends section.

There was a time in my teens and early twenties when I had the whole issue of politics sectioned off in my mind as a topic that did not really affect me on a personal level one way or another. Didnt really understand, didnt really care. Those days are gone for me. Ive come to understand that politics is to people, as water is to fish. You may not notice, you may not be aware, but your the entire context of your life is swimming in it, like it or not.

Best regards to you, and take care
-Jack

GRANITECHIEF
12-15-2005, 09:06 AM
If the two were to play a best two out of three set match for a million pounds of marijuana and 1/2 ownership in the Miller Brewing Company, who do you think would win: Bush or Kerry?
What if the semis were this
Clinton v Limbaugh
Bush v Kerry
Who would you like in the final?

I would like to challenge any of them in that tourney. I would play the best tennis of my life.

MegacedU
12-15-2005, 11:26 AM
To Docalex:
I like politics. I'm a conservative. I discuss them regularly. There are 3+ other Bush bashing threads here that people can continue to flame in. Goodbye. (Ps It's not MY offseason.)

To CJ - Thanks for the regards, after the day I've had, I'll probably be needing them.

FedererUberAlles
12-15-2005, 11:37 AM
To Docalex:
I like politics. I'm a conservative. I discuss them regularly. There are 3+ other Bush bashing threads here that people can continue to flame in. Goodbye. (Ps It's not MY offseason.)

To CJ - Thanks for the regards, after the day I've had, I'll probably be needing them.

What a surprise, the rich snob is a conservative.

theace21
12-15-2005, 03:03 PM
I don't care Bush, or his dad - but his daughters seem to have a good time...

Phil
12-15-2005, 05:30 PM
Political forums are all over the net. I like GWB and I don't need to sort through insults while I'm discussing tennis.

Then don't. When you see a thread like this, just move along...You don't have to write anything and no one will miss you. Believe me.

MegacedU
12-15-2005, 07:52 PM
What a surprise, the rich snob is a conservative.
The rich snob?! That's original. I'm none of the above actually.

Phil - People will miss me, that's for sure. You can never help but throw yourself into controversial threads either. Let's not lie to ourselves buddy.

atatu
12-15-2005, 08:20 PM
The rich snob?! That's original. I'm none of the above actually.

Phil - People will miss me, that's for sure. You can never help but throw yourself into controversial threads either. Let's not lie to ourselves buddy.

Maybe when (if ?) you go to Columbia, which you've mentioned several times in your threads, they'll teach you that it's a free country and we're all entitled to our opinions...

Phil
12-15-2005, 08:34 PM
The rich snob?! That's original. I'm none of the above actually.

Phil - People will miss me, that's for sure. You can never help but throw yourself into controversial threads either. Let's not lie to ourselves buddy.

I doubt anyone would, but keep saying that to yourself and maybe you'll believe it. And OF COURSE I throw myself into controversial threads-that's part of what this Board is about, so who's "lying"?

Steve Huff
12-15-2005, 09:02 PM
I support Bush AND voted for him. I think that if Chicago Jack is woried about the air we breathe and the water we drink, you had better hope Bush continues doing what he has been doing. Otherwise, the air we breathe will eventually smell like mustard gas and the water will be filled with bacteria and blood from where all the bodies will be dumped. And, it will be on OUR soil, not there's.

Phil
12-15-2005, 09:16 PM
I support Bush AND voted for him. I think that if Chicago Jack is woried about the air we breathe and the water we drink, you had better hope Bush continues doing what he has been doing. Otherwise, the air we breathe will eventually smell like mustard gas and the water will be filled with bacteria and blood from where all the bodies will be dumped. And, it will be on OUR soil, not there's.

Sounds like you've been playing too many of those violent video games.

edberg505
12-15-2005, 09:28 PM
I personally think George Bush is dumb as a box of rocks. And along with that he's a liar and a hypocrite and I find it hard to agree with anything he says or does.

TheRed
12-15-2005, 10:40 PM
Sounds like you've been playing too many of those violent video games.

Hilarious! Phil, I don't always agree with your opinion but damn, that was funny. Steve, now let's not get caught up in the republican propaganda machine. I'm obviously a democrat and I don't care that you're a republican but that doesn't mean I believe Bill Clinton didn't have sex that one fateful day nor should you believe the absence of Bush will be the end of America. Sure, Bush would like us all to think America would burn like France and the life we live will forever end if a democrat was president but seriously, you can't believe that's the case. You don't think Kerry cares about defending this country? He did fight in a war. Has invading Iraq, a country terribly weakened, without WMD's, really made us safer?

I was taught America was the land of the free and that our military helps ensure that freedom. But I also thought we were the leading defenders of civil rights, we have freedom of speech, that we believe in equal opportunity, that we are fighters of tyranny, and that we have a government of checks and balances. Bush has pushed for smaller government when it comes to social welfare (which takes up a miniscule part of the federal budget), increased government intrusion, attempted to circumvent our justice system by giving an American the term "enemy combatant," and has an administration that may have committed treason because a patriot, the CIA officer, is married to a man who dared to criticize his motives for entering Iraq.

MegacedU
12-16-2005, 08:24 AM
I doubt anyone would, but keep saying that to yourself and maybe you'll believe it. And OF COURSE I throw myself into controversial threads-that's part of what this Board is about, so who's "lying"?
Don't be a hypocrite. You tell me to skip over threads I disagree with. Why don't you?

Phil
12-16-2005, 08:35 AM
Don't be a hypocrite. You tell me to skip over threads I disagree with. Why don't you?

Because rather than skip them, I'd prefer to mix it up-if the subject is interesting, like politics-rather than whine and tell people they should go off and post on another board. Either participate, or keep your trap shut. I'd rather hear comments that I disagree with, but at least have some substance, than your whinning. Now go run off and play. Don't you have a mall to hang out in, or something?

MegacedU
12-16-2005, 08:53 AM
Because rather than skip them, I'd prefer to mix it up-if the subject is interesting, like politics-rather than whine and tell people they should go off and post on another board. Either participate, or keep your trap shut. I'd rather hear comments that I disagree with, but at least have some substance, than your whinning. Now go run off and play. Don't you have a mall to hang out in, or something?
I participated in the FIRST one of these threads. There's so many of them on the same exact topic it's ridiculous. Rather than flame in one place, it's sprawled acrosse tw. I'm unsure you really know what whining is. Everything I say seems to be whining. "The sky is blue" G-D Meg, STOP WHINING! I went to the mall last night actually. But I do have a snomobile and about 8+ inches of snow to ride it in. Have fun in here guys.

MonkeyPox
12-16-2005, 09:02 AM
I think that websites and the internet are so interesting in good and bad ways and this thread is a perfect example. The crux of the discussion is very interesting, but the utter lack of civility between people who disagree is just so petty and uncalled for. You'd never see people talk to each other this way in real life who hardly know each other, but since you can't really see them, you can do it so easily on here. Restraint in this area shows maturity and class and can help keep the discussion substantive rather than just a barrage of insults.

I happen to agree with Phil that if Meg doesn't want to engage in the discussion, just move on. But does she have to move on to the mall? And what's wrong with going to a mall anyway? And what's wrong with being rich or conservative? I'm not particularly either, but if someone else is, it sure doesn't bother me. Live and let live.

Phil
12-16-2005, 09:22 AM
I happen to agree with Phil that if Meg doesn't want to engage in the discussion, just move on. But does she have to move on to the mall? And what's wrong with going to a mall anyway? And what's wrong with being rich or conservative? I'm not particularly either, but if someone else is, it sure doesn't bother me. Live and let live.

There's nothing wrong with going to a mall; that's where Meg obviously belongs, so I suggested that she go there-because...there's nothing wrong with it and it's where she belongs. Nothing wrong with being rich per se, either, as long as you've earned it, legally...now being conservative is another story altogether...

legolas
12-16-2005, 09:26 AM
i support our president, he may lie, he may not be liked by u guys, but he is the president, the ones to blame r the non voters

ChicagoJack
12-16-2005, 09:38 AM
I support Bush AND voted for him. I think that if Chicago Jack is woried about the air we breathe and the water we drink, you had better hope Bush continues doing what he has been doing. Otherwise, the air we breathe will eventually smell like mustard gas and the water will be filled with bacteria and blood from where all the bodies will be dumped. And, it will be on OUR soil, not there's.

Hi Steve, I understand your reasoning on this, but I politely disagree with it. In my view, the so called "war on terrorism" and Bush domestic policy on air pollution, both as Texas Governor, and as President, are entirely separate issues.

" We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason."
- Edward R. Murrow, American journalist 1908-1965

Best regards to you Steve, and take care
-Jack

[..]..........................


No, I do not support president Bush. Because, among other things, I prefer clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. (third post on this issue)

Clearing the Air--Why I quit Bush's EPA.
By Eric Schaeffer
Washington Monthly
July/August 2002

“As director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement since 1997...continued
In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0207.schaeffer.html

Statement of Eric Schaeffer
Before the Senate Environment and Judiciary Committees
July 16, 2002
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Schaeffer_071602.htm

[..]

Bush policy on drinking water safety

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 required that EPA propose a standard for arsenic by January 2000, and create a final standard by January 2001. At EPA's request, the National Research Council reviewed the existing science on arsenic in drinking water and concluded that the current EPA standard did not achieve EPA's goal for public-health protection and, therefore, needed to be tightened as soon as possible. The EPA had been studying the arsenic issue for several years, and recommended using the World Health Organization's 10 part per billion standard. As the 2001 deadline loomed, President Clinton lowered the standard to 10 parts per billion, bringing the US in line with the World Health Organization’s standard. Within hours of President Bush's inauguration, Chief of Staff Andrew Card sent a memo to government agencies ordering a 60-day suspension of federal rules issued by the Clinton administration at the end of its term. The suspension included the arsenic standard. After much political backlash, the Bush administration backed off this rollback, announcing it would keep the Clinton-era tougher standards for arsenic in drinking water.

[..]

WASHINGTON (March 20, 2001) - The Bush administration's announcement today to withdraw the new arsenic-in-tap-water standard is a craven capitulation to the mining industry and other corporate interests at the expense of the health of millions of Americans, said NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). EPA's final arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) would have lowered allowable levels of arsenic in tap water from the current standard of 50 ppb, an outdated standard established in 1942. The new standard was a result of more than a decade of scientific reviews, public hearings, and discussions with health experts and industry. The international standard adopted several years ago by the World Health Organization and the European Union also is 10 ppb.This decision will force millions of Americans to continue to drink arsenic-laced water," said NRDC Senior Attorney Erik D. Olson. "Many will die from arsenic-related cancers and other diseases, but George Bush apparently doesn't care. This outrageous act is just another example of how the polluters have taken over the government."-
-- National Resources Defense Council,
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/010320.asp

[..]

It couldn't be more simple -- Americans don't want their families drinking arsenic, but under President Bush's proposal, Americans could drink twice as much arsenic as the World Health Organization recommends for third-world countries," Pope continued. "There's no new news in this and no good news in this. President Bush is demanding more delay, continued consideration of unsafe arsenic levels in our drinking water, and more scientific study of an issue that's been exhaustively examined for decades. This leaves communities and everyone concerned about safe drinking water uncertain about whether their water will be safe enough to drink when President Bush is finally done.

Before the Clinton EPA strengthened drinking water standards, those levels were set at 50 parts per billion (ppb), based on 1942 data. Then, in January, the EPA lowered allowable levels to 10 ppb, at which level the cancer risk is one additional cancer case for every 500 people. But at 20 ppb -- the upper level being considered by the Bush Administration -- the cancer risk increases to 1 per 250 people."
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0418-13.htm

[..]

Best regards to all, and try to play nice in here. In my book, Rs Ds and Moderates all want what is best for America, we just differ on what the problems are and how to fix them. There are no bad opinions, and no bad people here. We are just looking at this thing from dif perspectives. PS - TheRed,#34 Nice post.
- Jack

Phil
12-16-2005, 09:47 AM
i support our president, he may lie, he may not be liked by u guys, but he is the president, the ones to blame r the non voters

That's brilliant. I think you oughta run in '08-you seem to really have this politics thing down pat. Damn non voters-they're the ones that got us into this Iraq mess in the first place...

ChicagoJack
12-16-2005, 10:14 AM
I personally think George Bush is dumb as a box of rocks. And along with that he's a liar and a hypocrite and I find it hard to agree with anything he says or does.

Hey Edberg, way way off topic. Just noticed your location.

I learned to play Tennis at he Albq NM Tennis Club in the late 60s-early 70s. Nancy Neeld was the Pro there back then. She had kids that played and were my childhood friends. I was lucky enough to somehow get in on the family tennis lessons she gave. An odd quirk of fate to have a many time USTA National Champion teaching a punk kid like me tennis. I have many many fond memories of that place. Is it still there? swimming pool in the center, and clubhouse off of that?

Jack

edberg505
12-16-2005, 10:47 AM
Hey Edberg, way way off topic. Just noticed your location.

I learned to play Tennis at he Albq NM Tennis Club in the late 60s-early 70s. Nancy Neeld was the Pro there back then. She had kids that played and were my childhood friends. I was lucky enough to somehow get in on the family tennis lessons she gave. An odd quirk of fate to have a many time USTA National Champion teaching a punk kid like me tennis. I have many many fond memories of that place. Is it still there? swimming pool in the center, and clubhouse off of that?

Jack

Not a problem Jack, That's very cool. I actually am a memeber of that club. I live about 2 min walking from it. You can see the tennis courts from my house if you were to walk out to the end of my driveway. And yes the pool is still in the center and so is the club house. I looks to be pretty old but still in good shape. There are some pretty good players there I've enjoyed playing there so far. I won't be here much longer though. I'll be moving sometime next year as soon as I find a place to do a postdoc.

ChicagoJack
12-16-2005, 10:54 AM
cool beans. good luck with yer postdoc.
-Jack

arky-tennis
12-16-2005, 12:37 PM
Too insulting of a thing to say, even for me... Sorry.

ChicagoJack
12-23-2005, 09:52 AM
.

No, I do not support President Bush. Because, among other things, I prefer clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. (fourth post on this issue)

[..]............................................

Three of the major risks regarding food safety

1. Listeria Bacteria When you eat a hot dog, hamburger, turkey sandwich, does it ever occur to you that it might not be safe to eat?  While we all realize some of these foods might not be the healthiest, it never occurs to most of us that these foods could actually kill us. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, each year an estimated 76 million Americans get food poisoning.  325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die.  Listeria is particularly troublesome because it is found in meat and poultry products labeled as "ready to eat".  It is the rare consumer that will cook deli turkey or chicken before using it in a sandwich, so any bacteria that is present will not be killed.  In comparison to other types of food poisoning, Listeria is relatively rare. However, it is lethal. Each year there are an estimated 2,500 cases. Ninety percent of victims are hospitalized and twenty percent die. Listeria is especially harmful to pregnant women, as the result will almost always be miscarriage, stillbirth, or a child with severe disabilities.  It is estimated that one-third of persons poisoned by Listeria are pregnant women.

[..]

2. Ecoli Bacteria (Escherichia coli O157:H7) Meat typically becomes contaminated with E. coli during the slaughtering process, when the contents of the animal's intestine and feces are allowed to come into contact with the carcass. Unless the carcass is sanitized somehow, the E. coli bacteria are eventually mixed into the meat, as it is ground into hamburger. Because the bacteria is mixed into the meat during the grinding process, and not just on the surface, thorough cooking (greater than 160 degrees) is required to prevent E. coli poisoning when the ground beef is eaten by the consumer. E. coli bacteria is believed to mostly live in the intestines of cattle, but has also been found in the intestines of chickens, deer, sheep, and pigs. E. coli does not make the animals that carry it ill; the animals are merely the reservoir for the bacteria.
http://www.about-ecoli.com/

[..]

3. Mercury “Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and can also be released into the air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in streams and oceans and is turned into methylmercury in the water. It is this type of mercury that can be harmful to your unborn baby and young child. Fish absorb the methylmercury as they feed in these waters and so it builds up in them. It builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others, depending on what the fish eat, which is why the levels vary. If you regularly eat types of fish that are high in methylmercury, it can accumulate in your blood stream over time. Methylmercury is removed from the body naturally, but it may take over a year for the levels to drop significantly. Thus, it may be present in a woman even before she becomes pregnant. This is the reason why women who are trying to become pregnant should also avoid eating certain types of fish. Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of methylmercury. However, larger fish that have lived longer have the highest levels of methylmercury because they've had more time to accumulate it. These large fish (swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tile fish) pose the greatest risk.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html

[..]

4. Attention Grabber “October 14, 2002: Wampler Foods/Pilgrims Pride recalls 27.4 million pounds of turkey and chicken products from the Franconia, Pennsylvania plant. These products were produced and shipped over a five month period. This is the largest meat recall in US history. These products were sent to retail stores, restaurants and institutions nationwide. Only a small percentage of the contaminated meat products are actually recovered. The other product was consumed. Vincent Erthal, a USDA inspector on the night shift at the Wampler plant from May 2000 to September 2002, disclosed the following facts regarding the plant:

• “Exceedingly high” listeria samples were identified in the plant as early as the Spring of 2002- four months before the recall.

• Plant officials were given advance notice of testing and the plant conducted “special cleanings” to assure negative results.

• He observed live flies and cockroaches in processing departments; dead flies on exposed products; foreign matter on products; ready-to-eat products were dropped in the area of drains and placed back in production; poultry products that fell into an “inedible” barrel (referred to as “listeria soup”) were retrieved and placed back in production; ready-to-eat product and raw poultry were prepared in the same room at the same time and using the same sink; unsanitary liquids dripped on meat products before packaging; fully cooked franks were dragged on the floor prior to peeling and packaging."
http://belluckfox.com/listeria.html

[..].................................................. ....

Question: Does anybody here, know why food safety is a partisan issue?
-Jack

Yours!05
12-23-2005, 10:51 AM
Hey All
Have you seen this? If it is Culturally Insensitive, I apologise. The Bush-Kerry one was very Bi-Partisan.
http://www.jibjab.com/Movies/MoviePlayer_na.aspx?contentid=123&adp=1

Maybe I've been to too many Christmas Parties:eek:

ChicagoJack
12-27-2005, 09:55 AM
.

"Behind the ostensible government, sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of today."
-- Theodore Roosevelt.

That statement still rings as true today as it did back then. Roosevelt was President during the Progressive era when the Pure Food and Drug, and Meat Inspection Acts, as well as many other consumer safety regulations were passed. Control of bacteria found in meat and poultry, including Listeria, is a perfect example of the need for tough government regulation, as well as a demonstration of what can happen when de-regulation paves the way for corporate influence over regulators.We feed these foods to our kids without a second thought because we trust the companies that produce them and we assume our government is there to enforce good safety practices. Hardly the only example, this is a clear case of the public interest losing out to the corporate interests during the first and second terms of George W. Bush’s Presidency.

[..] .......................................

No, I do not support President Bush. Because, among other things, I prefer clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. (Fifth post on this topic)


Ten Reasons Why Food Safety is a Partisan Issue


Reference 1. The meat and poultry industries are heavy contributors to the Republican Party in general, and Bush-Cheney in particular.  Their Political Action Committees are also contributors to the campaigns of all members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, especially to the Republican members. In the 2000 election, 59 million dollars in hard and soft money was raised by lobbyists representing the corporated food producers. 73% of those dollars went to the Republican party. Why does this occur? Because when there is a Republican in the White House, food producers can count on a softer stance on the enforcement of existing regulations, even roll backs of existing regulations. Rs win elections in the center middling red states, and Ds win the coastal blue states. Middle America is of course, where the chickens and cattle are raised, slaughtered and processed. Rs use the USDA to pay off their contributors from the red states. Even the exception proves this rule. In 2001 and 2002, Democrats introduced amendments to increase and improve meat inspection: The Republicans AND Democrats from cow states opposed them.

Reference 2. Over the past dozen years, Republicans have consistently received a larger share of the total agribusiness contributions than Democrats have. With each Presidential election cycle, the gap continues to widen. In 1992, Republicans received $7.5 million more than the Democrats. In 1996, the difference was $24.4 million in the Republican’s favor. The 2000 election saw the Republicans pulling in $28.2 million more than the Democrats.

Reference 3. Six of the top 20 meat and poultry processing companies and their chief executives, and the major trade associations, all of whom contributed to the Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004, played an active role in shaping USDA’s Listeria policy.

Reference 4. The Bush Administration did not waste any time putting its mark on USDA policies. In April 2001, the Department moved to end the zero-tolerance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 contamination in meat served in the school lunch program. Meat suppliers vociferously opposed these standards, which had been established in 2000. When the new policy made the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, the White House ordered the zero-tolerance standards reinstated. In addition, the Bush Administration completely reversed position on a key element of the HACCP rule, thereby undermining its effectiveness. At the urging of consumers, USDA had established performance standards to verify that meat and poultry plants HACCP plans were in fact controlling pathogen levels on end products. A plant that consistently failed to meet the Salmonella standards could be closed permanently. In December 2001, a federal appeals court ruled that USDA did not have the authority to close a plant for failing to control Salmonella levels in raw meat and poultry. Not only did the Bush Administration choose not to appeal this decision, but it also opposed legislation that would give the Department the authority to set and enforce limits on pathogens, as well as to require companies to recall contaminated meat and poultry products.

Reference 5. After the 2000 election, numerous meat industry alumni joined USDA in positions directly relating to food safety and nutrition. The list begins with Deputy Secretary James Moseley, coowner of a large hog farm, and moves on to Veneman’s chief of staff, Dale Moore, who came to USDA directly from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, where he was executive director for legislative affairs and Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs Mary Waters, a former ConAgra executive. Other former NCBA alumni and veterans of other meat related groups took over other top posts. In filling the key position of Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Bush Administration appointed Elsa Murano, a professor well known and liked by the industry. The Bush Administration also converted key positions, like that of FSIS Administrator, from career civil-service to political-appointee status.

Reference 6. By contrast, recent Democratic presidents have tended to view supporting consumer positions on meat and poultry safety issues as good politics, and their appointments at USDA reflected that attitude. Both Presidents Carter and Clinton chose former members of Congress to run USDA and filled most subcabinet positions with former congressional staff, and environmental and consumer advocates. Those appointments with some food industry experience did not work for meat or poultry interests. For example, Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger, a California farmer, did not raise cattle, and Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Caren Wilcox had previously worked for Hershey Foods, a company with no meat or poultry businesses. One exception to this rule is Scott Shearer, an aide to USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, who had previously worked for the American Meat Institute.

Reference 7. Bush’s relationship with shall we say “big chicken” begins back in Texas. The CEO of Pilgrims Pride Corporation is Lonnie “Bo” Pilgrim. Bo was one of Bush’s top 10 supporters. Pilgrim’s Pride also made its private corporate jet available to the Governor five times during 1999. Molly Ivins sums this up relationship better than I can: “ Bush came to Washington with a pre-existing condition in favor of lax regulation on bad food. Not only was he elected president as the candidate of the party of un regulated food and poultry, he’d been elected with the help of one of the biggest chicken kingpins in the South. It’s no surprise bush killed of his predessors’s Listeria regulations. He was just doing what God and the party of poultry intended him to do” Little side note. In the 80’s during a Texas legislature session, Mr. Pilgrim walked onto the floor of the Texas Senate and started passing out $10,000 dollar checks, with the payee section left blank. The Senate was about to vote on a workers compensation issue with some folks who had lost fingers, or were severely injured by the repetetive motions common in slaughter houses. Much to everyone’s amazement, at the time it was quite legal to hand out blank checks on the floor of the Texas State Senate. Laws were later added to cover this audacious contingency.

Reference 8. Listeria first became a problem in the 1980's and the USDA established a zero-tolerance rule.  In spite of this rule, in 1998 there was an outbreak that killed 21 people.  This led to a comprehensive plan to reduce Listeria infections by 50% by the year 2005.  Originally, the goal was for a 50% reduction by 2010, but public outcry resulted in the earlier target.  The regulations were published just before President Clinton left office. As reported by the Consumer Federation of America in their report "Not Ready to Eat", there was a complete change in philosophy when President Bush took office.

Reference 9. In 2002, there was another Listeria outbreak with 131 cases.  A subsidiary of Pilgrim's Pride was one of the two companies involved, and some of the products made their way into the national school lunch program.  USDA moved to tighten the standards, but backed off after intense lobbying from industry and pressure from the White House.  The final rules were essentially what industry asked for. 

Reference 10. Today, one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental ******ation and heart, liver and kidney disease. The Clinton administration had classified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which triggered a requirement that those utilities remove 90 percent of the mercury within three and a half years. It would have cost less than 1 percent of plant revenue, and the great thing about it is that it works; we now know that when the utilities stop discharging mercury, that the fish downstream clean up almost immediately. By 2018, Bush's Clear Skies Act would allow 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury than what would be allowed by simply enforcing the already existing Clean Air Act.

-Jack

max
12-27-2005, 01:36 PM
It's interesting how stark and tense the Bush-supporters are. I supported him the first time around because I keep finding the Democrats just don't get it when it comes to moral issues. And moral issues are a valid concern for voters given the state of science, given the state of society. But the weird thing about Bush is that it's like you either have to be 100% with him, and jumping up and down with his banner, or else you're suspect, a problem, anti-American, etc. Interesting the Emotional Politics that his people play.

K. Wilson Moose
12-27-2005, 07:30 PM
Then don't. When you see a thread like this, just move along...You don't have to write anything and no one will miss you. Believe me.

I gotta go with Phil on this one.