That's a riot!

GW *is* a spoiled silver spoon capitalist bafoon, but he does have one good quality. He's not John Kerry.

And if he had done his job in a "satisfactory" way he would be winning this election by a "landslide". Instead, at best, he may eeek his way in again.


RM

He didn't eek his way in, his brother and henchmen stole the election......

LOL. If you are still that bitter and misguided from losing the first time, you better hide your gun and ammo from yourself after next week...

We shall see just whom needs to hide their self-destructive side, I predict that you will be very surprised................

PhisFreak,

I am supporting Kerry and it's mostly because I care so much about our environment and fishing. This is what a NASA scientist wrote about GW and his administration as it pertains to the environment:

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. Here is the link if you are interested in reading the entire article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

That all aside, I often hear what you just mentioned about Democrats going to "take away our guns". Noone is going to take away your guns, repub or dem, guns are part of our constitution and are as old as the country itself. The democrats are, however, for controlling certain weapons such as "fully automatic machine guns" used for nothing but killing people. I personally don't see the need for a person to buy a fully automatic weapon at Wal-Mart but am a strong believer in our right to bear arms.

I don't expect to change your mind about who you vote for as everyone seems to be quite polarized in this regard. It seems that people either "really like" or "really dislike" GW. Right now the election looks to be "neck and neck" but if GW had done even a "satisfactory job" he would be winning bya landslide.

Best regards,

RM

"I am supporting Kerry and it's mostly because I care so much about our environment and fishing"

That would make you an idiot of the highest order. Showing you know squat about environmental policy and the mechanisims involved in making that policy.

hey look everyone, elvis spelled idiot correctly.

Let me correct that spelling. Idiot is spelled "h20"

"That would make you an idiot of the highest order. Showing you know squat about environmental policy and the mechanisims involved in making that policy."

The King,

It's disappointing to see you turn this into a personal attack of my character. I don't consider you an "idiot" because you choose to not agree with me. I make my living as a fisheries biologist and "my job" is to understand impacts to the environment. I would consider myself "more eduated" on environmental issues than the majority of people in this country and environment protection is very important to me. I understand there must be balance and am not against logging, industry, etc., but also understand that these things must be done in a sustainable way.

Perhaps you would also consider the string of fish and wildlife doctorates from the "Defenders of Widlife Action Fund" that put this information together about GW to also be "idiots".

1. Bush packed his administration with former industry lobbyists unfriendly to environmental issues. He made Gale Norton his Secretary of the Interior, despite her having argued before the Supreme Court that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional, and tapped J. Steven Griles as her deputy, though he continues to earn money from his past position as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industries.

2. The Bush administration has proposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and is considering weakening laws against new oil and gas drilling off the coasts of Florida and California – putting wildlife populations at risk in all three regions. More>>
One of President Bush’s first acts was to revoke protections for forests by voiding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska. Now his administration proposes opening more than 58 million more acres of protected forests to road-building and logging projects by allowing governors in the lower 48 states to opt out of protecting wild forests.

3. President Bush has reneged on his campaign promise of four years ago to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which provides matching grants to states and local governments for the conservation of public outdoor recreation areas. His budgets over the past three years have failed to fund the LWCF at its authorized level of $900 million, averaging less than half that, and leaving key conservation programs underfunded.

4. Through both direct regulatory action and actions through the court system, the Bush administration has worked to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ensures that the federal government exercises care when making decions that impact the natural environment. Bush has repeatedly called for exemptions to NEPA for Department of Defense Activities, highway building, and energy drilling leases on public lands.

5. The Bush administration proposed a plan to eliminate Clean Water Act protections for more than 20 million acres of America’s wetlands, abandoning the plan only under considerable pressure from conservation groups, hunters and anglers, and a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Still on the table is a White House “policy guidance” that would dump Clean Water Act prohibitions on pollution in so-called “isolated” streams, ponds, and wetlands.

6. Courts have found the Bush administration in violation of the Endangered Species Act more than 60 times in just three years in office. Furthermore, the administration has listed only 25 species under the Act in three years, every single one of them the result of a court order. (The first Bush administration listed an average of 58 species per year, and the Clinton administration averaged 65 additions per year.)

7/ President Bush has proposed allowing electric and coal companies to emit nearly seven times more mercury than is allowed under our current law, placing hundreds of thousands of children and pregnant women at risk for damage to developing brains and nervous systems. Four years ago, the EPA formally designated mercury as a hazardous pollutant, and already one of every three U.S. lakes and one in ever four U.S. rivers are so contaminated that the fish in them should not be eaten. Still, the Bush administration halted enforcement of the EPA's regulations and proposed its own more relaxed rules, at the request of big industrial corporations.

For anyone interested in seeing this link go to:

http://www.defendersactionfund.org/bushRecord.jsp#2

RM

rivierman,

Any single issue voter is an idiot regardless of the issue.


Bush packed his administration with former industry lobbyists
( Do you benefit from any of these indsutries directly or indriectly by lower consumer costs better products or easy access to goods? We are a consumer driven society and unless you are living off the grid you beneift form this. Yet you oppose it emotionaly but fund it directly or indirectly with your lifestyle)

. The Bush administration has proposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and is considering weakening laws against new oil and gas drilling off the coasts of Florida and California – putting wildlife populations at risk in all three regions. More>>

( So you take the bus to fish or work. You do not use products dirved from oil. You are part of the demand and every bit as guilty as the next guy)

Now his administration proposes opening more than 58 million more acres of protected forests to road-building and logging project.

( again ,you do not consume forest products? there is no paper, wood in your life at all your home is situated in the middle of an old growth forest with no impact whatsoever. I know I know the next guy is worse because you have to have those things and he does not)


President Bush has reneged on his campaign promise of four years ago to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

( i'll give you this one as a promise is a promise)


Through both direct regulatory action and actions through the court system, the Bush administration has worked to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

( Again this is done to lessen the constraints on industry to provide jobs, develop the economy make building [power plants for an expanding population. So you would propose stopping this and limiting job growth paying more taxes to support the people effected. Limiting your need fro electricity, Paying 10 to 20x for goods and services that you need today?)

The Bush administration proposed a plan to eliminate Clean Water Act protections

(see any of the above unless you are saying he just gets a kick out of it)


Courts have found the Bush administration in violation of the Endangered Species Act more than 60 times in just three years in office. Furthermore

(see any of the above unless you are saying he and Cheney are out hunting endangered species)


President Bush has proposed allowing electric and coal companies to emit nearly seven times more mercury than is allowed under our current law
(The net that allows you to read this post is using electricity generated by these power plants. We can kill all of this and send smoke signals of flash signs across the US)


Do you see the theme here. You have voted for all of this with your spending and lifestyle. You are an equal part of the problem. Everthing Bush has done can be traced directly back to you , me and everyone here.
You need to look at every single thing in your life and the upstream and downstream effect on the environment before you point the finger. You need to buy your 10 acres and set it aside for all time to offset your impact on the environment and then be willing to buy 10 acres for everyone in the world that is un able and unwilling to do the same. You may not be dumping sediment in the streams directly but you dollar is doing it . Either here or in S America so you can have a Rosewood handle on your Graphite(mined) flyrod(coated with petro chemicals) while you wade that stream in your gortex gear( more petro chemicals) casting that line(More petrochemicals) to deliver the fly before you set the hook(mined) on that wild fish. You sanp a picture( more petrochemicals and mined goods) and then get in you Tundra( 1000's of parts made of petro chemicals and mined goods) and drive home( oh my god imagine all the trees and wet lands cleared and filled so you can do that) back home( forest products ,mined goods petro chemicals) Environmentalism is a fallacy you are manipulating the environment right now for you own needs and calling the other guy worse for helping you.

Can we do better yes but is the Avg. joe of this world willing to pay the price? No! Don't forget the majority of the world wants what we allready have. the worst is yet to come and your vote will have nothing to do with it.

The King,

"Only when the last plant has died, the last river poisoned, and the last fish caught, will we realize we cannot eat money".

(19th century Cree saying)

You missed my point...I am not against the use of natural resources so long as they are done in a way that provides sustainability. We can have clean air, clean water, forests, and strong fisheries so long as we managed these things in a "sustainable way". We are subsidizing farmer and operators to the tune of billions of dollars. Lets do this in a way that protects our environment at the same time. GW is for now, not for tomorrow. GW is for money, not for the resource. I cannot for the life of me understand how a person that visits this site support GW when he is doing everything in his power to unravel what fish and wildlife species require.

Your opinion King is exactly what got us to where we are today, massive extinctions and continued "blinking out" of species. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I'm glad that as time goes on people are starting to understand the importance of the environment. Whether you realize it or not King you are a dying breed, lets hope its not too late.

Best of luck to you come November 2.

RM

Rm,

Yep I am a dying breed. One that does not live in denial and does his part.

I have 10 acres set aside all riparian and have restored 2200 feet of Salmon bearing creek with only natural plants. I am the only one on this watershed that has exceed grazing and farming setbacks as proscribed under the new proposed CAO. The canopy is 142 year old Western red cedars. I have also planted 1500 western red cedars along with 150 firs on my land. My electrical bill is less than $35 per month and iIdo not use propane or natural gas or tother fossil fuels. I am 95% organic and grow or raise %80+ percent of my own food. My garbage total is lest than a cubic foot per week. And my impact on earths environment just by living in America is almost 20x that of the avg. citizen of the world. Meaning even after doing all that I have ipollute earths environment more than most people on the planet.

I also do not call my self a conservationist while fish with bait or support hatchery fisheries.

I find that very hard to believe given your support of the biggest damage to our environment...GW Bush.

RM

RM,

I doubt you would believe anything your leftist profs and Biology books do not teach you. Thats OK pup life has a way of teaching you wet behind the ears,idealist every lesson you need.

"Why is science seemingly at war with President Bush?"

That's the question recently asked by a New York Times reporter in an article that begs for some perspective.

The premise of Andrew Revkin's article ("Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue," Oct. 19) is that supposedly nonpartisan scientists are "bitter" toward the Bush administration for allegedly politicizing science — and the scientists have taken action with 48 Nobel laureates signing a letter this summer endorsing Sen. John Kerry for president.

"Political action by scientists has not been so forceful since 1964," Revkin writes.

That may be true — although I would limit that statement to "some scientists." There are plenty of scientists who think that President Bush has not done enough to reverse the federal government's proclivity for junk science. But to the extent there is any uprising by some vocal scientists against President Bush, it's had little to do with science and everything to do with politics.

First, as far as the 48 Nobel Prize-winners supporting Kerry are concerned, none of them have any noted expertise in any of the particular public policy issues on which they criticize the Bush administration. Their views on public policy issues, in fact, are often no more informed than those held among the general public. So there is little meaning in highlighting the views of Nobel laureates.

Rockefeller University energy expert Jesse Ausbel told Revkin that researchers were angry with the Bush administration because they were excluded from policy circles that were open to them under previous administrations.

"So these people who believe themselves important feel themselves belittled," Ausbel said.

Moving past the apparent rampant narcissism among these scientists, it's not clear why President Bush should have been saddled with scientists who may have advised President Clinton. Such scientists were often egregiously wrong on major scientific controversies — global warming, air quality and pesticides, to name a few.

Global warming fretter-in-chief Dr. James Hansen told Revkin, "Under the Clinton-Gore administration, you did have occasions when Al Gore knew the answer he wanted, and he got annoyed if you presented something that wasn't consistent with that. I got a little fed up with him, but it was not institutionalized the way it is now."

Now let's see about that.

There was the Clinton EPA's report claiming that secondhand smoke causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually — a report that was trashed by a federal judge who said that the Clinton EPA cheated on the science to reach a predetermined result.

Then there were the dubious air quality rules that the Clinton EPA rammed through in 1997. When Congress asked the Clinton EPA to provide the raw data from a key study to independent experts for verification, the agency shockingly refused, saying such a review would not accomplish anything.

And how could we forget the Clinton EPA's infamous program addressing chemicals in the environment that supposedly adversely affect hormonal systems (so-called endocrine disrupters?) That multibillion-dollar program survives (even under the Bush administration) despite the fact that the study that launched the program was withdrawn from publication because it was determined by federal investigators to be the product of scientific fraud.

There's also the Clinton EPA's baseless campaign to scare parents about alleged threats to children posed by chemicals in the environment, its senseless vilification of General Electric over PCBs in the Hudson River, and the agency's effort to scare us about allegedly cancer-causing dioxin in the food supply.

Those are just some of the examples of politicized science at the Clinton EPA — and it seems pretty institutional to me.

This is not new. Politically correct science has been with us since at least the time of Galileo Galilei in the 16th century. It will be a difficult task to de-politicize science given that the federal government plays such a large role in funding scientific research and interpreting the scientific data that is used as the basis for law and regulation.

President Bush inherited this inherently political process — he did not invent it.