Posted on 06/04/2002 10:06:01 AM PDT by CoolGuyVic
"'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,' Bush said dismissivly... "
More to come, I'm sure
A Conservative State Representative (Republican) gave me a bit of advice. I was talking to him and had thanked him for his stand and hard work to try and pass concealed carry in our state. He surprised me by his response. In a way he rebuked me by telling to never put a politician on a pedestal but to keep their feet to the fire.
I don't like the fact that Rush is badmouthing Bush, but he is using the truth to do it. Its all about votes to W now, it seems to me. He has surrendered on every promise he made to his base (with the exception of a tax cut) If this was Clinton, you'd be calling W a lying scumbag. But since he seems to have an air of "credibility" in his down home charisma, anyone who dares critizes Bush is considered a traitor. Sorry but I hold 'W' to the same standands as I held Clinton to. Call it what you will, but at least Rush, as well as myself, aren't going to be blinded by someone who says he's conservative and acts liberal!
Bravo (and sadly, very accurate).
A medical pbm made it necessary, but it's turned out to be a blessing in disguise. It's amazing how much better I feel after having quit....
You're right. The article was only on the front page of the NYT, above the fold. I guess no one reads that, or the LA Times, or any other major paper that talked about this.
Tuor
If you read my very short self-description in my profile, I mention that I'm fairly liberal on environmental matters. Having given this more thought, I should say that I support *common sense* measures designed to protect the environment.
Thus, if someone tells me it will cost X amount to keep the air reasonably clean, but 100X or more to keep it in a near pristine state, then I'm going to say we should enact X (or maybe a bit more to be sure), but that 100X is not only too expensive, but excessive.
Companies *do* need to be prodded to maintain reasonable pollution restraints, but there is a point of diminishing returns which any prudent government policy needs to keep always in mind.
Tuor
Depends on what, exactly, they were.
But you seemed to have missed the main thrust of my post: that Bush has a credibility issue that Reagan never had, and him allowing this report to be released didn't help him any in that regard.
Ozone depletion and Global Warming are different in terms of scale. Whereas we can greatly reduce ODCs by restricting a few chemicals and providing better means of controlling and containing ODCs, this Global Warming business is aimed at regulating us out of are cars, restricting our ability to travel, giving more power to the government, and furthering our reduction to the status of serfs.
Finally, if Reagan had bent on many issues besides Ozone, I would eventually start to wonder whose side he was on, just as I do now with Bush. But Reagan *didn't* bend very often, and it never crossed my mind that he wasn't completely committed to the conservative agenda and America in general.
Tuor
But that's the point. He *didn't* disavow it. He dissed the EPA, that is true, but he didn't comment about the report itself. He did say he continues to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, but the EPA's report is not the Kyoto treaty.
If he wanted to disavow the report, he should've said something like, "I've read the report, and it's a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. I'm required to send it to the UN, but obviously we're not responsible for whatever global warming *may* be occuring."
After 8 years of Clinton, I've learned to pay close attention to exactly what a politican says.
Tuor
After 8 years of Clinton, one should have learned to pay close attention to exactly what a politician DOES. But I guess some folks would rather pick semantic nits.
Okay. The Bush Administration *did* release the report which said that there is global warming and humans are responsible for it.
Tuor
a sage, no doubt ;)
.....whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles....
Well, you're right. That certainly cinches it for me. To the lifeboats. We are doomed. The government released a silly report. And evidently that is news to you. It is curtains for us all. The death of the republic. Good grief.
Here is a suggestion: Why don't we focus on real problems instead of trying to find problems where none exist?
You got somethin' against the "transgendered'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.