Nader Fools: Gore and Bush different
ablea...@my-deja.com
screwed things up bigtime on an issue most of them care about, all for
their stupid little cause:
"Drill or Protect? Arctic Refuge Fate Depends Upon Florida Victor"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/arcticrefuge001117
.html
Bush and Gore are NOT the same.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Caruso
In article <8vec91$r4r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ablea...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Here's an interesting article about how the Nader idiots might have
>screwed things up bigtime on an issue most of them care about, all for
>their stupid little cause:
>
>"Drill or Protect? Arctic Refuge Fate Depends Upon Florida Victor"
>
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/arcticrefuge001117.html
Did you read, and understand, this article? Here's what it says:
CLINTON HOLDS POSSIBLE TRUMP
Months ago, conservation forces launched a drive to convince Clinton
to use his last weeks in office to declare the refuge's coastal plain
a national monument.
So, since "months ago", Clinton/Gore have known they have the power to
protect this area (and even if this protection was challenged, it would
certainly forestall development). But a few paragraphs on we read:
Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who supports oil drilling in the refuge,
believes there will be no monument declaration, his press secretary
said. "The indication we have gotten from the White House is they do
not intend to make any announcement regarding monument status for ANWR."
"The indication we have." That doesn't sound like they've not heard
anything; it sounds as though they've heard word from the White House,
indicating assent with their desire to drill in the refuge. Assent
from Clinton/Gore. You know, the ones who are so different from Bush
on environmental issues, particularly this one.
But god forbid you should blame the Democrats for this (that would
be the Democratic governor in Alaska who WANTS the drilling, or the
Democratic administration that's apparently given them the wink-wink-
nudge-nudge agreement that they won't try to prevent it). No, it's too
hard to look at your own party's failings, so you have to try to blame
someone else. And by this point I'm sure everyone knows just who is
every Democrat's favorite scapegoat.
IMO, Gore's posturing on this issue is just that--posturing. I believe
that Gore would have conveniently forgotten about this position, just
the way Clinton fiercely attacked Bush for turning back Haitian boat
people and then enacted the same forcible return policy as one of his
first acts as president. They're liars, and they'll say whatever it
takes to get elected, and then do whatever is most expedient once they're
in a position to get away with it. Just like Bush, of course...but
that's the whole point.
>Bush and Gore are NOT the same.
No, they're not, but if you think this article significantly bolsters
your case you're sadly mistaken. And the difference is simply not that
great, even on this issue, where it's at least measurable. Maybe you're
not keeping up on current environmental news, and so you're not aware
of Clinton/Gore's efforts to undermine any meaningful agreement on
greenhouse emissions, at the global warming conference in the Hague.
Here's one article for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20001122/2858804s.htm
And here's a sampling of foreign headlines on the topic:
--"Gas-Guzzling U.S. Under Fire at Global Warming Talks" (Agence France Presse)
--"U.S. Blamed for Climate Treaty Talks Deadlock" (London Daily Telegraph)
--"Climate Talks Fail to Close Rift with U.S." (London Guardian)
--"U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut Global Warming" (London Independent)
--"Pollution Pact Under Threat as America Is Accused of Con Trick" (London Times)
I like that one from the Independent: "U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut Global
Warming." That's the Clinton/Gore administration. You know, the ones
who are so different from Bush on environmental issues.
- John
ablea...@my-deja.com
As if they're going to tell Tony Knowles, who adamantly opposes a
monument, that they're going to do it.
Wait until Clinton actually fails to name it a monument before you
blame him for it.
>
> But god forbid you should blame the Democrats for this (that would
> be the Democratic governor in Alaska who WANTS the drilling, or the
> Democratic administration that's apparently given them the wink-wink-
> nudge-nudge agreement that they won't try to prevent it). No, it's
too
> hard to look at your own party's failings, so you have to try to
blame
> someone else.
Bullshit - there is no failing yet. Clinton has until Jan. 20 to fail.
Then you can come yell at me.
> And by this point I'm sure everyone knows just who is
> every Democrat's favorite scapegoat.
What if Clinton names ANWR a monument, and the GOP Congress repeals the
Antiquities Act that gives him that power? Bush would sign the repeal;
Gore would veto it.
>
> IMO, Gore's posturing on this issue is just that--posturing. I
believe
> that Gore would have conveniently forgotten about this position, just
> the way Clinton fiercely attacked Bush for turning back Haitian boat
> people and then enacted the same forcible return policy as one of his
> first acts as president. They're liars, and they'll say whatever it
> takes to get elected, and then do whatever is most expedient once
they're
> in a position to get away with it. Just like Bush, of course...but
> that's the whole point.
>
> >Bush and Gore are NOT the same.
>
> No, they're not, but if you think this article significantly bolsters
> your case you're sadly mistaken. And the difference is simply not
that
> great, even on this issue, where it's at least measurable. Maybe
you're
> not keeping up on current environmental news,
LOL!
> and so you're not aware
> of Clinton/Gore's efforts to undermine any meaningful agreement on
> greenhouse emissions, at the global warming conference in the Hague.
> Here's one article for you:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20001122/2858804s.htm
>
> And here's a sampling of foreign headlines on the topic:
>
> --"Gas-Guzzling U.S. Under Fire at Global Warming Talks" (Agence
France Presse)
> --"U.S. Blamed for Climate Treaty Talks Deadlock" (London Daily
Telegraph)
> --"Climate Talks Fail to Close Rift with U.S." (London Guardian)
> --"U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut Global Warming" (London Independent)
> --"Pollution Pact Under Threat as America Is Accused of Con Trick"
(London Times)
>
> I like that one from the Independent: "U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut
Global
> Warming." That's the Clinton/Gore administration. You know, the
ones
> who are so different from Bush on environmental issues.
You seem to have the sad idea that because Clinton and Gore aren't as
good as you'd like, he's worthless. You just don't get it. Your head is
in the clouds. Let me explain it to you. Under Bush, we probably won't
have a weak global warming treaty -- we won't have ANY treaty.
You make progress is small steps. You can't have Nader, but you could
have had Gore, and that would be lots better than Bush. Deal with it.