Quote:
Originally posted by Theking:
"Show me someone that thinks that Bush as President would be better for the environment (and wild salmon in particular) than Kerry, or Al Gore if he had gotten the Presidency, would and I'll show you someone who's delusional. "

What is delusional is forgetting the history of politicians and policies that put the environment in it's current state. Then ignoring the fact that those political agendas and policies are now so entrenched in our lives and that any one party or politican can reverse their effects. One needs to look at their life and all the things in it and the impact the changes needed will have. Have you done that. Have you done your part for the salmon? Have you quit using electricity, lumber, mined products ,agricultural products, have you set a side 10 acres of land in the PNW to remain untouched by man for eternity to mitigate your impact? Well have you or are you a typical psuedo environmentalist that is all talk and no action and really has no clue what he is saying but it sounds good to other pusedo intellectuals. Lets hear your story?
My question is, have you? I don't have ten acres to give. Considering that except for Clinton the last 24 years have all been with Republican Presidents, who made those policies? And before you blame Congress, remember that THE PRESIDENT picks the heads of environmental agencies like the BLM and EPA.

I noticed that you avoided all of the points that I made. My point stands. Bush's cabinet is corrupt. They would sell out the salmon in an instant like they have with so many other aspects of environmental protection. Whoops, I forgot. They already did. That's why 35,000 to 60,000 of them lay dead in the Klamath. That's why they tried to have hatchery fish classified as wild fish, so all their lumber buddies could log closer to streams. That's why that when you bring home that salmon to the table, it might just have a lot of 'other stuff' like mercury and arsenic in it. Yum yum.

Tell me with a straight face that Bush is a better President in regards to the environment than Clinton was. And if you're going to try and bring Clinton's philandering status into this, you automatically lose, since it has nothing to do with his environmental record. Go on. I dare you.