18 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaIgnorance must be bliss.
The hospital should be free to go about it's business.
The agreement between employer and employee can be as binding or flexible as they like to make it, none of your business Howie.
Anyway there has been a relaxing of regulation, and that is a good thing, that is what I was commenting on, my position remains intact, rock solid and principled, free from contradiction.
18 Dec 08
This is from the link given in the first post.
"Mr Bush has already been criticised by environmentalists for adding fewer than 10 species of plant and animals a year to the endangered list.
That contrasts with former President Bill Clinton, who added an average of 65 species a year. "
Seems to me things were in a dreadful state under Clinton, what sort of weirdos could read this as bad news, these environmentalists are so bitter and twisted they can no longer think straight. Hulllllooooooooo environ-mental-ists, less critters on the endangered list is a good thing.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFGood idea. God knows we don't want any of those smart people in the scientific community to have any say in things. We in America must do everything in such a way as to release as much toxic waste and posions into our Air, Earth, and Drinking Water as possible! We'll save a few bucks now, and spend trillions later having to clean up our toxic waste dump called the USA. Another genius move from the George W Bush group!! Any more bright ideas?? 🙄
"The Bush administration has made it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment. Revised rules mean agencies will no longer have to consult scientists about whether projects, such as the building of dams or mines, would harm wildlife. [...] Modifications to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are ex ...[text shortened]... well-informed common sense that will improve the prosperity and well-being of all Americans?
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaYour being witty right?
This is from the link given in the first post.
"Mr Bush has already been criticised by environmentalists for adding fewer than 10 species of plant and animals a year to the endangered list.
That contrasts with former President Bill Clinton, who added an average of 65 species a year. "
Seems to me things were in a dreadful state under Clinton, what so ...[text shortened]... . Hulllllooooooooo environ-mental-ists, less critters on the endangered list is a good thing.
You do see the enormous gaping hole in your logic yes?
Pleas tell me your being clever otherwise this post really says an awful lot about your capabilities in the application of basic logic........
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by MexicoNo maybe your logic needs checking, mine says:
Your being witty right?
You do see the enormous gaping hole in your logic yes?
Pleas tell me your being clever otherwise this post really says an awful lot about your capabilities in the application of basic logic........
Less critters on the endangered list = good
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaNo less critters on the endangered list = Less critters with the protection afforded to them by the endangered list
No maybe your logic needs checking, mine says:
Less critters on the endangered list = good
Just because they're not on the list doesn't make them any less endangered.....
I assume your being willfully obtuse, because you really didn't strike me as being plain stupid
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by MexicoSo I guess when a species comes off the endangered list that's really real bad news eh.
No less critters on the endangered list = Less critters with the protection afforded to them by the endangered list
Just because they're not on the list doesn't make them any less endangered.....
I assume your being willfully obtuse, because you really didn't strike me as being plain stupid
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaOhhhhhh really willfully obtuse..... To the point where its almost, but not quite, trolling.
So I guess when a species comes off the endangered list that's really real bad news eh.
Come on I know you can draw the correct conclusions from this....
Its a long and difficult process to add or remove species from the list, as I'm sure you know. It takes wangling with all sorts, land owners, politicians the EPA etc etc.
If one has presidential backing then getting species on the list becomes easier.
Now, having endangered species on your land devalues it significantly, and generally adding animals pisses off farmers, developers etc.
WHO Bush likes to keep sweet, thus he doesn't add species when he can avoid it. Hence minimal species make the list.
NOT because they're not endangered.
Furthermore removing species is quite difficult they have to have a demonstrable stable populations. AFAIK less than 20 have made it off the list.
Now do you understand why.
Less added = Bad
more Removed = Good
Or are you going to continue to play dumb and make me to find you a book with nice pictures to help??
Your questions are well targeted so I assume your playing dumb.
😛
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by MexicoSo it's political eh.
Ohhhhhh really willfully obtuse..... To the point where its almost, but not quite, trolling.
Come on I know you can draw the correct conclusions from this....
Its a long and difficult process to add or remove species from the list, as I'm sure you know. It takes wangling with all sorts, land owners, politicians the EPA etc etc.
If one has presidentia ...[text shortened]... pictures to help??
Your questions are well targeted so I assume your playing dumb.
😛
Well that cuts both ways.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFNice! I am supposed to accept verbatim the UK Guardian's characterizations of the effect of the American President's regulatory changes.
Here are some details about the "human progress" that the Bush administration is making possible:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations
• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.
• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.
• Allow ...[text shortened]... He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president. [/i]
I thought we had an energy crisis in the US. We need to build powerplants fired by our most abundant domestic fuel. That's coal!
Carrying loaded and concealed weapons is a Constitutionally guaranteed right not to be infringed upon by government anywhere including national parks.
We ought to be looking for oil shale anywhere it can be found.
Abortion rights. You want to limit and license a right specifically guaranteed in writing in the Constitution, and protect one that was created in 1972 by nine men in Black robes.
The numb skull DOT requirements on truck drivers already have most of them scratching their heads as to how they can still make a living. You try it without occasionally spending 11 hours behind the wheel.
Even with the Guardian's biased presentation, I like Bush's proposals.
I'll bet you his staff will not rape and vandalize the Whitehouse on their departure nor will the Bush's steal the silverware and paintings.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by MexicoUsually a critter being removed means either the critter is extinct, or it has enjoyed success in breeding and is no longer endangered.
No less critters on the endangered list = Less critters with the protection afforded to them by the endangered list
Just because they're not on the list doesn't make them any less endangered.....
I assume your being willfully obtuse, because you really didn't strike me as being plain stupid
If we want to maximize protection by your standard then just include every species on that list.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by howardgeeI guess you should know. The guy articulated his position quite clearly, and it is rock solid consistent and logical. That you disagree with it inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours.
Ignorance must be bliss.
When an argument is presented. you either counter it, question the premises, or mount an ad hominem attack. The third is an admission of defeat in any debate.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignIs "pointing out" someone has "displayed" their ignorance an ad hominem attack?
I guess you should know [that ignorance is bliss]. The guy articulated his position quite clearly, and it is rock solid consistent and logical. That you disagree with it inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours. When an argument is presented. you either counter it, question the premises, or mount an ad hominem attack. The third is an admission of defeat in any debate.
As for suggesting that Wajoma's position is rock solid consistent and logical, simply displays your ignorance. That you disagree with howardgee's dismantling of Wajoma's inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours. (Is this an ad hominem attack?)
In this matter, the normally very careful Wajoma (and thus relatively satisfying to debate with) has been sussed and cramped, as we say where I come from (at least we did in the 1970s). That's not an insult, by the way. To deem someone as being sussed and cramped is purely an analysis of their position.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignNice to meet another right whinger on this site.
I guess you should know. The guy articulated his position quite clearly, and it is rock solid consistent and logical. That you disagree with it inspite of its logic, and that you've made no counter argument displays not his ignorance, but yours.
When an argument is presented. you either counter it, question the premises, or mount an ad hominem attack. The third is an admission of defeat in any debate.
"normbenign" is a bit of a mouthful....mind if I call you "NoBrain"?
It is far more appropriate!!