Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

spacefreak · Oct 11, 2002, 12:21 AM

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/sto...-5751913c.html

At no extra cost to taxpayers !!!

fulmer · Oct 11, 2002, 12:47 AM

huh? so what?? He added a few thousand acres to a nat'l forest.

spacefreak · Oct 11, 2002, 01:04 AM

As the Environmental extremists say, "Every acre counts".

fulmer · Oct 11, 2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As the Environmental extremists say, "Every acre counts".

heheh. yeah, and I guess they aren't too keen on counting the thousands that burn--acres lost, when only a fraction of the acres burned could have been thinned, thus preventing the catastrophic fires of recent years.

OldManMac · Oct 11, 2002, 01:15 AM

This is not "expanding environmental protection!" This is adding a teaspoon of water to a bathtub! Bush is the most environment non-friendly president of this century! He was handed millions of dollars of his daddy's money, which came from the oil bidness, and his record on the environment is as bad as his record at attempting to be be a businessman!

Zimphire · Oct 11, 2002, 01:30 AM

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Some people will never be happy.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Oct 11, 2002, 02:18 AM

Sheesh, why stop with the Santa Monica range?

Malibu Colony should be delared a national park- and Barbara Striesand (BS), Robert Dork Jr. and all the rest of the hypocite Malibu wackos should have their beach houses dozed in favor of public beaches and wildlife preserves.

THAT would be something to celebrate!

Spliffdaddy · Oct 11, 2002, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sheesh, why stop with the Santa Monica range?

Malibu Colony should be delared a national park- and Barbara Striesand (BS), Robert Dork Jr. and all the rest of the hypocite Malibu wackos should have their beach houses dozed in favor of public beaches and wildlife preserves.

THAT would be something to celebrate!

word up.

Zimphire · Oct 11, 2002, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sheesh, why stop with the Santa Monica range?

Malibu Colony should be delared a national park- and Barbara Striesand (BS), Robert Dork Jr. and all the rest of the hypocite Malibu wackos should have their beach houses dozed in favor of public beaches and wildlife preserves.

THAT would be something to celebrate!

ROFL!!!

juanvaldes · Oct 11, 2002, 02:36 AM

good for him.

Miniryu · Oct 11, 2002, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Some people will never be happy.

Dammed if you do? If he actually did something I would be happy. The forest he added is nothing compared to what he took away during the first month of his presidency. If he gave back half of what he took away during that time period I would be happy.

arrested502 · Oct 11, 2002, 04:52 AM

Wow Dubya does one thing during his term to appeal to the Democrats whoop-a-dee-doo

He's just doing it to try to win popularity.

I really feel our next prezzzz will be a democrat. This guy is an asshat.

Speckledstone · Oct 11, 2002, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Miniryu:

Dammed if you do? If he actually did something I would be happy. The forest he added is nothing compared to what he took away during the first month of his presidency. If he gave back half of what he took away during that time period I would be happy.

Huh

Mac Zealot · Oct 11, 2002, 05:09 AM

yeah, agreed.

But he has more important things, like showing the middle east how manly he is

arrested502 · Oct 11, 2002, 05:27 AM

I think he's just trying to get a head-start on his re-election campaign. If Bush get's re-elected I'm moving to Canada or Europe. I didn't even hate Bush Senior this much.

Mac Zealot · Oct 11, 2002, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by arrested502:
I think he's just trying to get a head-start on his re-election campaign. If Bush get's re-elected I'm moving to Canada or Europe. I didn't even hate Bush Senior this much.

Same here... never liked the old bush, but the new one is worse.

Same here, I want to move to canada because I'm sick of all the war crap... and persistent news reporters.

driven · Oct 11, 2002, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Some people will never be happy.

Exactly.

This was great stuff when Clinton did exactly the same thing.

driven · Oct 11, 2002, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by arrested502:
I think he's just trying to get a head-start on his re-election campaign. If Bush get's re-elected I'm moving to Canada or Europe. I didn't even hate Bush Senior this much.

Quite frankly I think quite a few people who frequent this forum would be far happier in Canada, Europe or any one of a number of other nation-states that have political and economic structures closer to their beliefs.

If I was as far off center to the place that I lived as many of those here are, I would absolutely be miserable.

I wish you the best (and happiness) where-ever you end up.

L'enfanTerrible · Oct 11, 2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Driven:
Quite frankly I think quite a few people who frequent this forum would be far happier in Canada, Europe or any one of a number of other nation-states that have political and economic structures closer to their beliefs.

Canada plans to greatly expand National parks system....

backed up with a billion dollar plan, co-ordinated by the largest environmental groups in Canada.

That's what I call progress

deekay1 · Oct 11, 2002, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by driven:
Quite frankly I think quite a few people who frequent this forum would be far happier in Canada, Europe...

already there. thank you.

maxelson · Oct 11, 2002, 09:37 AM

I don't care what the motivation is, I thank him for it and look forward to more.
"Like the environmentalists say, every acre counts". And I do, and it does.
And I support "'doze a beach house" initiatives wherever they may be found, but starting with Streisands house would be nice.

"meeeemorieeeees..."

L'enfanTerrible · Oct 11, 2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by deekay1:

already there. thank you.

Which one, Canada or Europe? I guess Canada.

spacefreak · 09:57 AM

Originally posted by arrested502:
I think he's just trying to get a head-start on his re-election campaign. If Bush get's re-elected I'm moving to Canada or Europe. I didn't even hate Bush Senior this much.

I'd say he already has a pretty good head start.
Ever see that 70% approval rating of his?

L'enfanTerrible · Oct 11, 2002, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Perhaps you should pay some attention.
Have you seen how much Democratic-sponsored legislation Bush has signed into law? If you haven't, then you need to restrain your anti-Bush banter until you are better prepared to provide a sound argument.

To be quite frank, all this "support" for Democratic-sponsored legislation is simple political maneuvering. Bush does not care for the environment. Supporting the Democrats on some of the more pressing issues that they have gives Bush more support for his issues (like war) in the long run, and thats all he cares about.

[edit: I notice you changed your message, spacefreak. Popularity ratings shift as easily as the tides. This 70% means nothing and I question the validity of that statistic]

driven · Oct 11, 2002, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:

To be quite frank, all this "support" for Democratic-sponsored legislation is simple political maneuvering. Bush does not care for the environment. Supporting the Democrats on some of the more pressing issues that they have gives Bush more support for his issues (like war) in the long run, and thats all he cares about.

[edit: I notice you changed your message, spacefreak. Popularity ratings shift as easily as the tides. This 70% means nothing and I question the validity of that statistic]

It's called being an effective president and getting both sides of the isle to work together.

A senator can be hardline with his ideals (right or left) all he wants. It's up to the president to get them to compromise and work out a happy medium. Sometimes the dems will get what they want and sometimes the republicans will get what they want.

It starts with him. If he expects the democrats to compromise and give in on some issues than the President must do so as well, and he has. If you look at his record in Texas he signed quite a few Democratic sponsored initiatives. He believes that if the people thought enough to elect a democratic representitive than they are worth listening to when it comes to legislation.

It's the ONLY way that government can be effective.

L'enfanTerrible · Oct 11, 2002, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by driven:

It's called being an effective president and getting both sides of the isle to work together.

A senator can be hardline with his ideals (right or left) all he wants. It's up to the president to get them to compromise and work out a happy medium. Sometimes the dems will get what they want and sometimes the republicans will get what they want.

It starts with him. If he expects the democrats to compromise and give in on some issues than the President must do so as well, and he has. If you look at his record in Texas he signed quite a few Democratic sponsored initiatives. He believes that if the people thought enough to elect a democratic representitive than they are worth listening to when it comes to legislation.

It's the ONLY way that government can be effective.

Agreed, an effective President would have to "swing both ways" so to speak

The difference in my mind is that a truly effective Pres. would do good things for the environment (as an example, there are many more) because he or she truly had universal beliefs from both ends of the spectrum..

By no means does pandering to the opposite side make an effective leader.

Speckledstone · Oct 11, 2002, 12:15 PM

If a leader compromises (panders) with all political parties in order to pass legislation that the people want, I�d say that's an effective leader.

It�s much better than the norm; I�m a (insert political party here) so I will only vote for (insert political party here) legislation and if the other side brings something good to the table.... meh, screw �em.

typoon · Oct 11, 2002, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by arrested502:
Wow Dubya does one thing during his term to appeal to the Democrats whoop-a-dee-doo

He's just doing it to try to win popularity.

I really feel our next prezzzz will be a democrat. This guy is an asshat.

Yeah, that is why his Poll numbers are still so high.

thunderous_funker · Oct 11, 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by driven:

Exactly.

This was great stuff when Clinton did exactly the same thing.

Clinton had a terrible record on environmental issues. Outside of a few PR-esque gestures (like this one from Bush) he systematically undermined environmental causes.

Bush is way worse, of course, but at least he doesn't pretend to be eco-friendly like Clinton did.

L'enfanTerrible · Oct 11, 2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by speckledstone:
If a leader compromises (panders) with all political parties in order to pass legislation that the people want, I�d say that's an effective leader.

It�s much better than the norm; I�m a (insert political party here) so I will only vote for (insert political party here) legislation and if the other side brings something good to the table.... meh, screw �em.

Yea, I agree that being hardline is foolish. What I am saying is that a truly representative and effective leader would have a platform from both ends of the spectrum, with a nice compliment of both. This is why a two party system should be replaced with an electoral process of choosing the best candidate to represent the whole country.

driven · Oct 11, 2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:

Yea, I agree that being hardline is foolish. What I am saying is that a truly representative and effective leader would have a platform from both ends of the spectrum, with a nice compliment of both. This is why a two party system should be replaced with an electoral process of choosing the best candidate to represent the whole country.

I wouldn't go THAT far, but I would like to at least see a runoff system put into place that would prevent a 3rd party from "spoiling" the election and allowing someone with less than 50% of the vote from getting elected. If such a system were put into place than perhaps folks who truly desire to vote for 3rd party candidates would do so and not worry about getting "the worst of 3 or 4 evils" into office.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 11, 2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:

Same here... never liked the old bush, but the new one is worse.

Same here, I want to move to canada because I'm sick of all the war crap... and persistent news reporters.

I'll buy you an airline ticket to Toronto.

Speckledstone · Oct 11, 2002, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Yea, I agree that being hardline is foolish. What I am saying is that a truly representative and effective leader would have a platform from both ends of the spectrum, with a nice compliment of both.

Very good point, I agree. In the meantime, I'll take what I can get.

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
This is why a two party system should be replaced with an electoral process of choosing the best candidate to represent the whole country.

I've thought about that myself and I think it could be a tremendous improvement. Seems like it would be a great way to keep elected officials on the right track when it comes to representing their constituents, instead of the party they belong to. Then again, I'm sure anyone with more knowledge of politics then me (and that ain't saying much) could shoot it down in a heartbeat.

thunderous_funker · Oct 11, 2002, 01:50 PM

Instant Runoff Voting is the best answer I can think of. Join the fight, make a difference

driven · Oct 11, 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Instant Runoff Voting is the best answer I can think of. Join the fight, make a difference

I like. It articulates what I said above.

There may be some benefits to dragging folks back out to the polls again, but ... as busy as American's are now-a-days I can see quite a bit of support for this. (And now that both parties have been bit by "spoilers" perhaps we will get some high-level support as well.)

Speckledstone · Oct 11, 2002, 02:24 PM

Instant Runoff Voting

Sounds like an excellent idea. Thanks for the link thunderous.

It may even work in Florida!!!

maxelson · Oct 11, 2002, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by fulmer:

heheh. yeah, and I guess they aren't too keen on counting the thousands that burn--acres lost, when only a fraction of the acres burned could have been thinned, thus preventing the catastrophic fires of recent years.

That issue is more complicated than that. Nice. Blame the fires on environmentalists. What was that folks are saying about environmentalists being the irrational ones?

Korv · Oct 11, 2002, 02:49 PM

There seem to be some people here that think this PROVES that Bush is good on the environment, or that don't believe he did any bad things before this good thing. The fact is he has set us back 50 years (easily) in environmental reform, and is signle-handedly destroying the natural resounces of this country.

Here is just one link about how Bush is destroying the environment. I could easily dig up another dozen. This is not a joke. Bush is destroyiong America.

Zimphire · Oct 11, 2002, 03:40 PM

Save the People.