Joe,



You claim this article is “full of facts” about Bush’s destruction of the environment. And yet, the article is primarily editorial opinion. (Most of it inflammatory, at that.) What “facts” Rob Kennedy, Jr. does state are unsubstantiated – meaning he didn’t give even a hint of what sources he drew his information from. Therefore an average person like myself has no chance to go back and study those sources more closely. I’ve read the whole article. It IS compelling, if one doesn’t bother to question sources or look closely.



I’ve no doubt that there have been shanigans going on from time to time in the EPA offices. But I’ll bet you every reptile in my collection that such deceptions have gone on on both sides of the issues. Do you drink Coors beer or do you have friends who do? Do you use products made by Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors? There needs to be a balance between absolute government control over these and other industries, and absolute neglect and abuse by the same industries. Yes, there must be laws to protect the environment. But those laws cannot go too far or we begin to undermine the great things that built this country in the first place.



Different people have different ideas about where that balancing line should be. The article you offered as “proof” of Bush’s attempts to destroy our environment do nothing but prove that political agendas rule the day. It does nothing to show a balance (or lack of) between law and freedom. It attempts to paint Bush and his cabinet as psychopathic, money-grubbing, maniacal liars fully and consciously intent on the destruction of our nation. The only reason to paint reasonable people in that light is because you don’t want them in power, not because you actually believe what you are trying to say.



I am not an environmental expert. No doubt, Rob Kennedy, Jr. is one. He has access to sources that I do not. And he has the ability and the will to twist those sources and reveal just the bits of them that back up his political agenda. I do not have the resources or the time to refute all his unsubstantiated facts. He didn’t write that paper in a day, and I certainly couldn’t refute it in a single morning sitting in front of the computer, as you seem to insist we be able to do. It would take weeks (at least) of diligent research...and that only if the person doing the research had the education, background, and ability to do so. I do not. Do you? Do you have the ability to research and substantiate all those “facts” Kennedy threw out on the table? Or do you expect me to take those on faith as you are doing?



We both choose where to put our faith. I put mine in Bush, and I have good reasons for doing so. You put yours in Kennedy and I’m sure you believe your reasons are just as valid as my own.



Doing so does NOT mean I wish to destroy the environment, as you implied. Doing so does not mean I can’t respect my animals. Attacking me (or anyone else on this board) and saying we cannot take care of or care about our animals simply because we have different political views than yours shows how close-minded and vehemently one-sided you are being on this issue.



And just to set the record straight, I am not Rodney’s “new friend.” I don’t even know who he is and to the best of my knowledge have never even exchanged a single word with him. We’re not “banding together”....we actually have completely independent and individual ideas.



Below this post is another post from me, taking the part of the article you thought worth posting here and pointing out all the editorializing and unsubstantiated facts.



The only person I see “flaming” anyone in this thread is you. Can you respond to this post without flaming or making baseless attacks about my character that you know nothing about?

[ Show Entire Thread ]