Why some gun owners are unhappy with Bush (environment)

[Khornet]

Jonesy!!

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Now let me see whether I get this:

Fraud is illegal. Has been for awhile, but it still happens. So now the Dems want to make it really, really illegal. But it will still happen, as anyone who understands human nature will relaize. So why would the Dems want to make it even more illegal, if it's not going to end fraud? Why, of course, to fashion a political bludgeon to use on Bush, and as a tool to harrass the Administration effort in Iraq. I can easily see a series of investigations founded on some Democrat's view of what the price of gas in Iraq should be (they, after all, know what everything should cost and what everyone should be paid).

AND it has that great "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" effect when Bush rejects the amendment: Bush obviously wants to do corrupt things, because he rejected the amendment!! A perfect political foil, and one which I would expect a pro-RKBA person to recognize: Those gun nuts obviously WANT more people to be killed, since they reject serial numbers for every cartridge being registered with BATF, etc.

 

[Jonesy9]

wow! and I thought I was cynical LOL!

 

[Khornet]

Jonesy

I think you and I are supposed to be working right now....

Yes indeed, my take on that is cynical. Guilty as charged. But honestly, haven't we seen this kind of thing before, from both parties? Nothing in Washington is ever what it seems on its face, and every political move has a name suggesting a certain agenda while really serving another. Come to think of it, that's not cynicism....that's the voice of experience you're hearing.

Example: remember when Bush wanted to put arsenic in our drinking water? When he was really only saying that Clinton's arsenic standard was good enough? And how about every time a preident refuses to increase funding for something as much as someone wants, and he's then accused of CUTTING funding?

Every story needs to be looked behind in politics.

 

[Jonesy9]

yep- haven't got much done, gonna need to close this window if I'm getting out of here on time and before the snow starts!

you also gotta remeber that the Halliburtons and Betchels have been fined for overcharging the gov before so why wouldn't you want to increase oversight of so much public money? especially when we're going to be there ofr a long, long time.

have a good weekend!

 

[Khornet]

Jonesy

point taken. OR enforce existing laws...same a with "Gun Control".

See ya
Khornet

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

the article makes some good points, any one who follows politics or public policy has seen the shift of power move from the citizens groups to the monied special interests and corporations, especially in environmental regulation.

I am not sure if that's true. Look at the ANWAR fiasco.

If any corporate culture holds sway at the Bush White House and with Republicans in general it's big oil.

Where was Big Oil's clout on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling plan?

 

[fallingblock]

Art addresses the issue of the Tongass.....

"As for the Tongass, clear-cutting is wrong because of the very steep mountainsides. "Cherry-picking" of harvestable timber doesn't hurt the ecosystem, as it more nearly replicates the natural process of trees dying of old age--which some species do. The issue is not logging, per se, but the manner in which the logging is done."
************************************************************

The 'monied special interests' such as the Sierra Club want to lock up resources against all future use, in the name of 'preservation'.

On a planet which is sustaining exponential human population growth with a recent upswing in lifestyle expectations for a significant proportion of that human population, this 'preservation' strategy of the radical greenies is a ticking time bomb.

Witholding resources from the market only serves to drive up the value of those resources, which increases demand, untill the demand exceeds the political will and/or ability to 'preserve'.

'Save old growth forest' may be a rallying cry for the eco-extremists, but as a means of protecting habitat and species numbers long term it is a very short-sighted policy .