I gotta know what you wanna be politicians think it would of been like if gore would of become president. Bush is no angel, but look what clinton left him.

G2: YOU started a thread about religion then have the nerve to ask that someone start an interesting fishing thread. to stop the bickering.
Talk about glass houses.

Jerry I quit: But I must point out that I didn't start this thread, nor the one about religion. Still it's better for everyone's blood preassure to drop this.

Why?

You'd just drag your political BS in from somewhere in right field and ruin it.

You know, you gotta fight those liberal demon rats whenever you can.

This nation is not in a sorry state due to Clinton or any of the Democrats. It is in a sorry state due to Georgie and the Republicans.

None of the Republicans are even remotely electable due to their stupid interests. And remember, Georgie did not win the election, Gore did. And Georgie stole it.

Georgie wants to trash our national forests for his buddies, trashed Iraq and A***anistan for his buddies, and wants to trash America for his buddies. If you can't see that, you need glasses.

Hmm, the economy is in the state it's in due to idiots inflating the tech industry when there was no money to be made. I could point out that this was under Clinton's watch, but that really doesn't matter. What the Clinton Administration is guilty of is Enron like bookkeeping for the budget.

The "surplus" was a combination of two things. One of them was creative accounting. The other was revenue "projections". The little idiot bean counters sitting up in Washington sat down and said "We're bringing in this much money now and our growth rate is 6%, so when deciding how much money we have we're gonna assume this unnatural and unsustainable 6% growth rate is going to keep going" which is simply stupid.

Then the ****ing tech companies crash because theres no real reason they should have been valued that highly considering they were losing money faster than they could print new stock shares to sell.

There was no "surplus" and there sure as hell wasn't a balanced budget. They were borrowing on money that had not and would not come in. So all those great times during the "good ol days" before your number one arch enemy GWB came into office were a FARCE.

Right, and the democrats have no loyalties to special interest groups. Democrats never gave China nuclear weapons information in exchange for campaign donations, right? Would you care to explain how Bush stole the election. We have an Electoral College that decides the president. If, perhaps, you were unaware of it prior to 2000, blame it on ignorance. Show me how Gore won the electoral vote. Use facts and proof, not opinions and hearsay. The facts are that Gore wanted to disqualify military ballots, it was Gore who took the issue to court, not Bush.

Could you show me one statement by Bush or anyone in his administration where he even implies he wants to destroy our national forests? He did not trash Iraq or Afghanistan for his "buddies". Afghanistan was harboring Osama Bin Laden. You probably don't remember this, but on September 11, 2001, a terrorist group called Al'Queida who is led by that Osama Bin Laden attacked our country. More people died from that than were killed at Pearl Harbor. The group that led Afghanistan was called the Taliban. We tried to negotiate with them to hand Bin Laden over to us (remember, that the government of Sudan offered us Bin Laden, but Clinton turned it down) but they wouldn't comply so we attacked.

As for Iraq. All the points have been made. We know Saddam had WMDs and since nothing can just cease to exist, we know they're still out there.

Destroy might be to harsh a word but he has gotten rid of several acts set aside to protect our forests. For a while every time I opened the paper he was backing out one environmental protection program or another. Again destroy is a little harsh but I don't think anyone would begin to pretend Bush is environmentally friendly.

right on Jacob

Nice job Jacob !!

That was even better than telling them to sit down and shut up

You're absolutley right; the democrats didn't give China nuclear secrets for donations. The woman that was sleeping with the FBI agents and charged with espionage was, in fact, a replubican that donated heavily to the republican campaign.

Yes we knew that Saddam had WMDs at one point in time. But we have also learned that he had none whence Bush scared us into believing they existed.

Things can simply cease to exist - it's called "destroying." Overwhelming evidence suggests that the physical weapons were destroyed and all that remained were desires and plans to reconstitute old programs.

Other than that, I don't think Bush is enviromentally friendly, either.

Originally posted by JacobF:
That's the first time I have heard that. The surplus disappeared in Georgies hot little hands. No one, other than Georgie, and apparently you, dispute that the surplus was real, and that the deficit that we are now in is far too real.

And it also sounds like revisionist history, and it sure looks like Orwell's 1984 to me.


http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/qroadless.asp#7

http://www.gptaskforce.org/article.php?id=120

I find it very interesting that we have never been able to prove the connection between Afganistan and 9/11 until after we bombed it.
But if you want to look at the books, Halliburton wanted to put an oil pipeline across the country, but only after the country was 'stable'.

And yes, it is 1984, and the Enemy is out there, and we have to keep making weapons. It should be soon when we catch him. Here eat a little soylent green and go back to your job at the Ministry of Information.

Rob
who prefers to live in a time in which misinformation does not exist, and our country is at war with a named party.

You know, you gotta fight those liberal demon rats whenever you can.

I think it's rather funny how many of you have found your way on to this forum pretending to be sportsmen who are concerned about how many salmon we'll have to harvest in the future.

The truth is that if all you lefty, Green party loving, tree hugging, W.T.O. rioting, capitalism hating, P.E.T.A. supporting and the save the gay whales-- "so called" enviromentalists types had your way--We wouldn't be allowed to fish at all (even if we only practiced catch and release). Forget hunting all together--even if it's to put food on our families table. Because the truth is you believe fishing and hunting are barbaric and inhumane.

I on the other hand suppot P.E.T.S. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Steaks). Because, like Ted Nugent says,"you got to kill it before you can grill it".

Bush 2004

Grandpa, have you got a seperate identity? I have to believe that SCOWAK is yet another that likes to see others reactions. I shall not abide him.

do you belong to that new group i just found out about called, I.A.S.F`er ??

After haveing the Tyee fire of 94 almost take the chellan property I am all for new roads and the ability to protect my property.Too many of us live in the city and do not think about those that do not.They think everybody is to live like them or else.Nobody on either side looks at the whole picture just the part that they want too.And unfortunately the left hugs the warm and fuzzy.You guys spend too much time voting with your emotions and disband the truth too fit your needs.scary.

Go BUSH

I've seen a lot of talk here about how the Bush Administration's policies will doom our forests, rivers, and wildlife. I haven't seen anything other than empty rhetoric. How about some specific examples that can be debated apart from some of the name calling and finger pointing. It doesn't matter who is in the white house. This debate is about policies, not people.

Example #1: The article that started this thread mentioned a Bush visit to Washinton state. It assumed he took credit for surging salmon runs and many of you agreed that is what happened. I saw this appearance and I thought GW Bush was using this example to show how conservative policies can be successful. In this case he was praising the cooperation between private industry, local government, and the community (us) which apparently has resulted in a success story for salmon recovery. It was a chance for him to use a concrete example of the kind of environemtal policy he supports. A policy that rewards responsible corporate behaviour as opposed to heavy handed and costly federal regulation. Is it possible that that is what this president, who has some conservative convictions, was doing that day?

I like this forum because it is full of like minded good folks on both sides of the aisle that can bring thoughtful discussion and debate to the table. Bring a good argument, grounded in facts, to the table and you'll find that open-minded conservatives will listen.

Respectfully,
lobo

well...bush want's to cut a whole lotta trees down to 'prevent' forest fires...the problem however seems to be that he wants to chop big trees down not clear the small dense undergrowth stuff that's really the problem ...because you see...the small stuff ain't worth much $...that's why it hasn't been cut before...so clear cut away....
...and i'm curious how bush can take credit for the salmon run this year when most of the upper columbia fish are 4+ year olds? was he in office in '99?
..he aslo wants to increase the use of hanford for dumping nuke waste and has dramatically cut funding to clean it and other superfund sites up....

And too many that live in the woods think that nature should be managed to suit their needs.

It's a double-edged sword.

I promised to take a break from this luancy. So, rather than enter into any detailed arguments, which never seem to change any minds, I just want to say that everyone who agrees with me is noble, brilliiant, honest, patriotic and has never lined a fish. If you disagree with me you are just wrong. Please reconsider all your previous thoughts and y realign your thhinking to agree with mine. There that ought to settle this for once and all.

P.S. Fishiung on the Yakima yesterday was excellent.