The proposal he has now abandoned was accompanied by a directive to the field offices of the Army Corps of Engineers that effectively weakened protections for wetlands and streams even as the new rule was being considered. This directive must be rescinded. Until it is, the administration's commitment to "no net loss" will remain largely rhetorical.
Please tell me what Bush has "done better than others."
Do you think the president should really take time to do this, or should it be upon each state to do this? I would think he had more important things to worry about, just my thoughts.... He's from texas and enjoys the outdoors, think what will happen if we get a city lover in there!
Considering Clinton basically did little more than status quo, Bush has been doing the same.
As for states protecting the environment--nope it really does not work--there is to much local political pressure. Meaning in rural areas the Agribiz wants it to be pro Ag even if it hurts the environment-(ditching sloughs, tiling Type I wetlands, herbicide and pesticide run off, etc...) They will not protect it sufficiently. Where as the Feds help protect it if East West South or North-they look at the bigger picture and can do a better job in areas the effect ALL Americans.
Now if we could get a candidate in 2008 with Bushs' right to bear arms, pro hunting AND then a guy willing to sink alot more serious $ into the environment and to strengthen enviro laws, that would be great!
This is my opinion only--not the sites. Of the 2 major candidates for 2004 based on right to own arms, hunting and policy, Bush is the clear leader. Kerry says many things but his record is very different. He has sponsored legislation in the past to restrict hunting as set forth by the Human Society of the US. It is the most antihunting org out there-they give Kerry an A+ Kerry also has sponsored legisaltion to restriction law abiding hunters from buying and owning semiautos and pump shotguns. Funny thing is he received a Remington 1187 12 ga hunting shotgun on Labor Day in WI, a gun that he wanted to ban :thumbsdown: I do not think he is a real hunter-he is acting like a hunter to try to get sportsmen to vote for him--but his record is clear, he is NOT the hunters friend at all. So do not be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing.
With Bush I know what his tract record is, he is Prohunting, for gun ownership by law abiding hunters, and has done an OK job for funding like Crep, etc.
So based on this--Bush is the clear choice in my personal opinion.
I am torn between the two sides, scince bush has been president my medical has doubled or more yet bush does nothing about it, gas has doubled, there are more people in poverty, we lose our good paying jobs in trade for much less, just to stay on our feet, then he claims it must be better because the unemployment rate is getting closer to normal, our standerd of living is decreasing rapidly, texas is a very poor state, and our nation is becoming poorer, he gives tax breakes to big companies that are outsourcing jobs overseas, in my trade we have 20 % unemployment, electritions are at 60%, I myself have only worked about 9 months each year, but someguy's haven't worked six months in the last two years, basicly I'm having a hard time affording to go hunting, even though I can because my rights weren't stripped, yet, I voted for bush last time, but I just caint afford it again, I have to work or I caint afford to go, I don't realy like either canidate, but I'm forced to vote for the one who supports blue collar AMERICANS, and my wages, not white collard forigners. imo, the only thing that bush did to help me is let that gun ban expire. I know if kerry is elected he will support our wages and such, but what about our hunting rights and gun rights?? that's anybodys guess.
President Bush has worked to dismantle water protections by cutting key funds for municipal sewage treatment; changing regulations to allow destruction of valuable water resources; attempting to eliminate or curtail environmental review processes; and allowing industries to get away with serious violations that could harm America's waters. The Bush Administration proposed a rule that would allow the destruction of up to 20 million acres of wetlands nationally (The Los Angeles Times). The Administration withdrew the rule but left in place a policy directive that results in the same amount of wetlands losses. This policy directive is inconsistent with the Bush Administration's pledge to go beyond the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.
You are either for wetlands...or you're not.
And so far, by their numerous actions, the Bush administration isn't.
I wonder if Mr. President will be making more wisecracks and taking the detour route again to avoid questions in the next debate he can't
Way to go...the LA Times isnt biased or anything. It SHOULD be up to the states. Federal government should not be in control of everything. Do you realize how much revenue hunting brings in to the midwest every year? Combined, the hunting industry in Kansas generated more than $488 million in retail sales, salaries and state and federal income tax, according to a U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Study. So I'm pretty sure the incentive is there for the states to keep the environment on their list of priorities. Leasing private land is also a major source of revenue for landowners so don't tell me that the Ag lobby will prevent any sort of state environmental protection. Combine this with the fact that Bush is trying to protect our right to bear arms while Kerry is working on quite the opposite and you have a pretty clear choice.
Cabella's Boy, before anyone gets into an "arguement", how old are you? I'm for Bush, Republican here, but I'm just wondering how much life experience you have Cabella's boy. Those are pretty strong words,"shut up", and to also invite anyone to get into a political "arguement" with you. This is the second post of yours that I know of and read that you started out by telling everyone to "shut up". Before you mount that horse you need to understand that rarely anyone wins in a political debate, arguement as you put it, and it usually ends with both sides getting VERY upset and angry. Most debates end in both sides thinking the other side is flat out dead wrong. It's a no win sitiuation when neither side has ALL the facts and will only bring up facts, or lies, to make their side look like their point is the only one that makes any sense.
:withstupid: Don't argue politics or religion cause its a loosing proposition no matter what side you take. And we don't need peoples tempers getting out of control here. This site is for information and to have fun on not to wage war on. Lets all try and keep it friendly.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
A forum community dedicated to duck hunters and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!