If you listen to the dems they would have you believe that the people that live in the "fly-over" states don't care about the environment and those that live in the "asphalt jungles" care about the environment.

"On a very small scale"

You do know your GOP's environmental record. Your link is to a minority in the GOP who are blowing smoke. In practice in all three branches of government the majority of the GOP will always always always side with money over the environment. Show me where they haven't.

"REP’s stated mission is: To resurrect the GOP's great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection as fundamental elements of the Republican Party's vision for America."

When hell freezes over.

The "poison" that divides is propogated by extremes on both sides.

Why?

Because it is self serving to do so.

Responsibility is a word neither extreme recognizes.

"However the idea that some urban dwelling scum who lives in an environmentally degraded asphalt jungle that is so disgusting that I won't even go there cares about the environment and some guy who lives on the land in a rural area doesn't, is on it's face so outrageous that it's laughable."

Seems you think all rural residents are Republicans. Yes that is outrageous and laughable. Next.

Good work Hank. GOP gets points for CAFE and adding to the wilderness system (that had more D than R support, but why quibble?) but not so much for the Hawaiian monument as again, there was little risk or opposition; i.e., it wasn't going to cost a Republican anything to support it.

But yeah, on average that's my point. Since Reagan and his Interior Secretary James Watt, the Rs generally, but not always, support development actions that contribute to the degradation and destruction of the natural environment, typically opposing clean air, clean water, natural area preservation, and energy conservation. And thanks for reaching in the grab bag for the exceptions.

Daily I deal with or observe plans that will further degrade the natural environment. I hesitate to say over 90%, so let's just say that the overwhelming majority are sponsored by people who identify with R or political conservatism. It's totally predictable, even without checking for the oversize gold pinky finger ring or tassel loafers most of them wear.

Liberals only think ". . . any GOP environmental plan includes an oil well in every back yard and lead paint chips and mercury smoothies as a part of child nutrition programs." because they usually do. I would think otherwise if only a few prominent Rs would actively oppose major actions that will knowingly degrade the environment.

I don't want to tear down every dam in the country since I choose to design fish passage systems and stream flow management requirements for some of them. And I don't want to convert all energy use to wind or solar - yet at least - because they are not technologically advanced enough in terms of energy storage to provide a 24/7/365 supply, and are therefore insufficient.

Sg

Sg

I think the real definition of a person, or a party, is what they are willing to do that's HARD, not what's easy. So you look at what people, or parties do that takes a huge amount of effort, energy and focus to achieve.

To me, the GOP has done NOTHING hard in the last 15 years to help the environment and that's the issue I have. They haven't expended their political capital, taken fire from business, or really put their necks out at all for the environment. And that makes it hard for me to support them.

To me, protecting the environment -- along with providing for the safety/security of the citizenry -- is one of the few truly vital government roles.

Don't be such a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, Irish Rogue...the "free" market will protect the environment just fine...Ayn Rand said so.

Fish on...

Todd

Well I now understand. If you live in a poor area of a big city you can't posibly be in favor of environmental protection and if you live on a Wyoming cattle ranch you must be a tree hugger. Yep - and up is down, black is white and the conservatives have a deep and abiding respect for the environment.

I thought only I's lived in the country. Go figure. We have D's and R's running around McCleary?

Are you referring to dummies and rejects?

Couldn't help myself.

Green Weenies arise. Go occupy a park and crap in it. Go occupy a building and crap in it. oh well

Boulder Dam er Hoover I mean. Done by two Republicans and Demo-
crat. Grand Coulee Dam was all by FDR alone.
Neither of them did any environmental damage, of course.

I call em Republicans and Democrats cause in those day they were
Americans first and party hacks second. Times change.

I suspect you are intimately familiar with dummies and rejects,
peckerhead.

"I suspect you are intimately familiar with dummies and rejects"

Sure am. I can not only spot em a mile away I can smell them all the way from Spokane and congratulations you qualify as both. I'm sure you are a colassal embarrasment to your region. Send out the keyboard grabbers.

As another looking for a title sez.

Fish on.

With such blindered responses is it any wonder the country is so divided?

Do you unbending (ok you bending ones, too ) Lib's think that all that is good in your life is the result of some Democrat?

*crickets*

Slab,

Not blindered at all. There's problems with far left liberalism in the form of 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, nanny state, and sometimes the belief that there is such a thing as a free lunch. I would have added spending like a drunken sailor, but Bushco co-opted that in the previous administration, so it isn't just liberal territory any more.

I'd identify more with conservatism if only it were conservative. The conservative propensity to interfere in social issues, contrary to their alleged "less gov't." philosophy like gay rights, abortion (if you're against them, don't get one), 1st Amendment, and the "there's no such thing as a bad defense expenditure" mentality turn me off. Then again is the pursuit of policies that favor the "have mores" or 1%ers and working to reduce if not eliminate the American middle class, and as previously mentioned destruction of the natural environment turn me off and make it hard to find a Republican worthy of support.

The upcoming governor's election may be tough. From what I know of Insley, he's pretty classic bleeding heart liberal. McKenna would likely be a significant improvement in financial management, and might be OK on environment, unless there's money to be made destroying it, in which case I expect he'll choose money. I'm not sure how he comes down on social issues, but I've heard him say a couple things that make me think he'll come down on the wrong side. I think a Republican candidate who stays out of people's bedrooms, doesn't try to re-write RvW, and values a natural environment would be a shoo-in. But then that candidate would probably be a Democrat.

Sg

Pot................kettle..................black.

Just like national politics back and forth, back and forth.

What we need is someone with fiscal responsibility and enough backbone to fund SS and medicare. Someone that is not beholden to DC lobbyists and can fight equally for us all, not just those with lobbyists, lawyers and politico's in their pockets.
Someone that can maintain the tax rates so that everyone prospers while avoiding making the US another caste society.
Someone with enough foresight to be proactive and not re-actively to the vagaries that will try and impede our progress.

These are but some of the things that this country needs, I pray to god I live long enough to see it happen!

Fishy

Aw crap.....common ground. Now doesn't that just suck?! (kidding.....I like)

Yup. When your views are 100% whack job then meeting you half way still leaves a 50% whack job view.

Do your dance, Kotex.
Noise, nothing but noise.

How are those "no compromise" relationships working for you?
Old ugly dog.....no tricks....pathetic you are.