Obama expected to sign wilderness bill

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
After 8 years of a regime that gave a wink and a nod to those that would rape the environment, this is a welcome change...

A bill to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness will be signed Monday by President Barack Obama.

The legislation expands wilderness protection from California's Sierra Nevada mountains to the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

The bill _ a collection of nearly 170 separate measures _ represents one of the largest expansions of wilderness protection in a quarter-century. It confers the government's highest level of protection on land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

It also allows Alaska to go forward with a planned airport access road in a remote wildlife refuge near the Bering Sea.

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=15&sid=150469
 
Werbung:
I am glad they are finally going to allow the road through Izenbeck. I cant believe that the whole thing got held up that long really.

Now if the President and Democrats will move to strengthen the clean water act, and large mine permitting process to stop Pebble Mine.
 
After 8 years of a regime that gave a wink and a nod to those that would rape the environment, this is a welcome change...



http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=15&sid=150469

Rape the enviroment? Example please?

And don't say "global warming", or "carbon footprints" because there are just as many scientist that say that is bunch of crap, as there are scientist that say its a great theory! I would love one great example of the environment being raped!:rolleyes:
 
I am glad they are finally going to allow the road through Izenbeck. I cant believe that the whole thing got held up that long really.

Now if the President and Democrats will move to strengthen the clean water act, and large mine permitting process to stop Pebble Mine.

Of course it did. Tell me of one "fast moving" federal government body of bureaucrats?

Here's the worst part: The nightmare of trying to get a stupid service road through your government controlled refuge, will now be relived by all the other people whose land will be confiscated by the federal government.

Worse, this is yet another infringement of the constitution, given there is no right given the to federal government for this land grab. Reminds me of China prior to 1979. Leftist claim this and that about supporting the constitution. In reality, they are dismantling it bit by bit.
 
Of course it did. Tell me of one "fast moving" federal government body of bureaucrats?

Here's the worst part: The nightmare of trying to get a stupid service road through your government controlled refuge, will now be relived by all the other people whose land will be confiscated by the federal government.

Worse, this is yet another infringement of the constitution, given there is no right given the to federal government for this land grab. Reminds me of China prior to 1979. Leftist claim this and that about supporting the constitution. In reality, they are dismantling it bit by bit.

Excellent point!

I wasn't sure that they knew there is a constitution. So I kept it simple....Still waiting for an example of that "Environment Rape."
 
Excellent point!

I wasn't sure that they knew there is a constitution. So I kept it simple....Still waiting for an example of that "Environment Rape."

Just for starters, Bush weakened the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to please his big business buddies, at the expense of our health..... He opened vast amounts of federal land to oil and gas drilling. Those things alone, and there are plenty more, are enough to qualify him as an environmental rapist.
 
Just for starters, Bush weakened the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to please his big business buddies, at the expense of our health..... He opened vast amounts of federal land to oil and gas drilling. Those things alone, and there are plenty more, are enough to qualify him as an environmental rapist.

Yeah, because the oil and gas drilling ruined the land. Have you ever seen an oil field? (FYI they aren't dark, damp, with oil and smog all around them like in political cartoons) Do you not realize we have some of the cleanest air, and water in world? Rapist?? :rolleyes:
 
Just for starters, Bush weakened the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to please his big business buddies, at the expense of our health..... He opened vast amounts of federal land to oil and gas drilling. Those things alone, and there are plenty more, are enough to qualify him as an environmental rapist.

Please Popeye you are not talking about the big


Bush is putting Arsenic in Your Tap Water!!!!


are you????
 
Would that be the Federal standard of 50 parts per billion for arsenic in drinking water? The standard that was put in place in the 1970s, and everybody was happy with for twenty-plus years? The 50 ppb standard that the Clinton administration stuck to, and was happy with (even the environmental whackos were happy), for its entire administration?

The 50ppb standard that, three days before he left office, Clinton suddenly raised to 10 ppb?

And the standard which, a few months later, the GWB administration lowered back to the same 50 ppb standard that had existed for decades, and which the Clintonistas and the enviro-whackos had thought was just fine, all that time?

The standard which the Clintonistas (in and out of the mainstream media) and the enviro-whackos suddenly started screaming bloody murder over, whining that Bush was trying to poison the entire country with arsenic in our drinking water by lowering the standard to the same 50 ppm level they had thought was fine before and never complained about?

That "standard"?

Many people say that impartial jounalism died in 2008, when they mainstream media unabashedly supported Barack Obama over John McCain for President, and gave up even the pretense of objectivity.

I suggest that it started earlier. Around March 2001, to be exact, when Bush returned the arsenic standard back to the accepted level of 50 ppb and the media, in a stunning example of doublethink, pretended outrage over something they had previously found no problem with for 20-plus years, because this time a Republican set the (same) standard.

Yes, there was raping going on back then. But not of the environment. And not by George W. Bush.

Plainly little popeye is longing for the "good old days" when he and his cohorts could easily get away with such blatant lies and disingenuousness without being caught.
 
Of course it did. Tell me of one "fast moving" federal government body of bureaucrats?
Well fast moving, depends on many factors. But I think it is worth pointing out that it took a Democratic Senator from Alaska to get the job done this far. The GOP even when they were in control of Congress and Bush in the White House couldnt manage, they handed out the pork spending to buy a hovercraft that of course the locals fall upon to maintain, which a town of 800 is quite hard pressed to afford. But its overwith now, the Democrats delievered what the GOP couldnt in 10 years.
Here's the worst part: The nightmare of trying to get a stupid service road through your government controlled refuge, will now be relived by all the other people whose land will be confiscated by the federal government.
Not exactly Andy, but the circumstances are a bit different here. There was a deal concerning a land swap, where mostly state land that nobody lives even close to, will be included into the NWR. There is also some local Native Corporation land that was included, but they are more than happy with the deal.
Worse, this is yet another infringement of the constitution, given there is no right given the to federal government for this land grab. Reminds me of China prior to 1979. Leftist claim this and that about supporting the constitution. In reality, they are dismantling it bit by bit.
The China reference is a stretch in my mind, but so is most of the doomsday right wing banter. As far as I am concerned, if we made it through the Bush years, we will make it through the Obama years.

While the issue of Federal ownership of land in Alaska has long been a touchy subject, I am hopeful that reasonable heads will prevail and that Kim Elton will have the necessary influence in the Department of Interior to get the enviromental requirements through.
 
Yeah, because the oil and gas drilling ruined the land. Have you ever seen an oil field? (FYI they aren't dark, damp, with oil and smog all around them like in political cartoons) Do you not realize we have some of the cleanest air, and water in world? Rapist?? :rolleyes:
Well it has certainly had some very negative impacts. Alaska recently marked the 20 year anniversary of the Exxon Valdez tragedy. Shortly afterwards, Bush Sr. put quite a bit of area that was critical to commercial fisheries habitat off limits of offshore development, along with areas that are ice bound for most of the year. GWB overturned these regulations and allowed lease sales in these areas. While I support opening ANWR, I think off shore oil and gas in some of these places is idiotic.
618-araup_3.1212282440.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpeg


929-araup_13.1212282442.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpeg

Now the sad notion to this whole episode is that the Bush Administration through his industry lackies wanted to remove the tug boat safe guards put in place after this tragedy, to prevent it ever happening again.

I could bring you to hundreds of miles of coastline in Prince William Sound where there is still considerable oil residue left over from this spill.
 
We already have too much government land.

Adding wilderness areas to the national forests adds not one square inch of government owned land. All it does is set aside land already owned for preservation.

We have quite a lot of wilderness land here in California, and most of it is really not useful for much other than recreation. Much of it is above treeline. Most of it is magnificent, scenic, and a wonderful place to get away from civilization and just enjoy creation the way it looked before there were 35 million people and nearly that many cars in the Golden State.

If you have never visited the wilderness areas, you owe it to yourself to do so. Put it on your bucket list.
 
Adding wilderness areas to the national forests adds not one square inch of government owned land. All it does is set aside land already owned for preservation.

We have quite a lot of wilderness land here in California, and most of it is really not useful for much other than recreation. Much of it is above treeline. Most of it is magnificent, scenic, and a wonderful place to get away from civilization and just enjoy creation the way it looked before there were 35 million people and nearly that many cars in the Golden State.

If you have never visited the wilderness areas, you owe it to yourself to do so. Put it on your bucket list.

I have visited wilderness land and its pretty and we do need to have some kept "pure"

but far too much land is owned by the government already that we cant do anything with. It is my understanding they have set aside land that you cant do squat with, but has oil or coal and the whole point of doing this is to make dang sure we never get to that oil or coal.
 
Werbung:
Rape the enviroment? Example please?

And don't say "global warming", or "carbon footprints" because there are just as many scientist that say that is bunch of crap, as there are scientist that say its a great theory! I would love one great example of the environment being raped!:rolleyes:

lol "many" ...try few. sorry.
 
Back
Top