BOOO! All Republicans hate nature and the environment!

/learn some history kids...

Little something for everyone in that headline. Good job!

A tale of two homes...

HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated
by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.



HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.

Who owns which home?

Considering how healthcare costs have been forcing many businesses to close, I wouldn't call Republicans pro-business either.

"Greenest Republicans"

That's gotta be a contender for the World's Shortest Book list.

Dancin_In_Anson: HOUSE # 1:

Me.

HOUSE # 2:

Also me.

Maybe "Most Asexual Rapists"?

My "carbon footprint" is less than Al Gore's or Barack Obama's. Where's my reward?

Locke3k: Maybe "Most Asexual Rapists"?

Nice.

-We don't know anything about it though. Maybe it runs on radiation and it's poisoning him.
-Or, maybe it runs on solar power!
-Why would solar power make him sick?
-Is he a republican?

There are, in fact, Republican environmentalists. They are becoming rarer, but they have existed as long as there have been environmentalists at all. Teddy Roosevelt is one good historical example, former Washington governor Dan Evans is another.

There are also lazy terrorists. Read the 9/11 Commission report, and learn how some of bin Laden's lazy ass underlings pissed him off.

And pro-business Democrats? As near as I can tell, that's almost all Democrats.

Dancin_In_Anson: Who owns which home?

Barbra Streisand for the first one, and Ed Begley Jr. for the second?

It's more like "sexiest World of Warcraft players".

BMulligan: And pro-business Democrats? As near as I can tell, that's almost all Democrats.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Just look at California...the Democrats there have turned it into the economic development agency for Nevada and Arizona.

Dancin_In_Anson: Who owns which home?

I'm going to go with Gore for the 20 room mansion and McCain for the small house with lots of cool stuff?

BooBoo23: Little something for everyone in that headline. Good job!

Came here to say that. This is a classic Fark headline.

And holy crow! unless it's a mimic account I've always read DIA's name as Dancin in Arson. Now I'm seeing it as Anson, which I suppose makes more sense? I don't know. I feel like I'm going crazy.

Dancin_In_Anson:


Who owns which home?

1. Gore
2. Bush

I live in that blue, business friendly, sales tax free state that elected Mike Castle ... kick, replies, etc.

I know a lot of conservatives who hunt and fish and enjoy nature and don't want to see it destroyed.

I called my one friend a 'tree hugger' once and he got pissed, but he will sit up in a tree for days shooting at deer. He lives in a tree in the middle of the woods for a week, but don't call him a 'tree hugger'. LOL

JQPublic: Dancin_In_Anson:


Who owns which home?

1. Gore
2. Bush

Obviously, this is more important and has a bigger impact on the environment than the way they govern and what laws they try and pass.

However, there are plenty of environmentalist Republicans, including many of the hunters and fishers mentioned above. But they have been ineffective in getting their party to side with the environment over big business interests so the Republican party deserves the reputation on the environment it currently has.

Yeah the democrats have been horrible for business. Pfff. Deregulation has caused so much of this ruinous bullshiat.

MFL: [stupid graphic]

The_Sponge: Just look at California...the Democrats there have turned it into the economic development agency for Nevada and Arizona.

Wait - you guys really don't think that the Democratic Party is totally in the pocket of corporate interests? Really?

How odd!

House #1
retirement home

House #2
home/office for someone who's still working...

Most-pro business Democrats? You write that as if it be an oxy-moran. You should have said most unlike a politician democrat.

Darwin's Prophet: Obviously, this is more important and has a bigger impact on the environment than the way they govern and what laws they try and pass.

That's a fancy way to say "Do as I say, not as I do."

James Imhofe scored minus (-)4 points, just above Joe Barton of Texas minus (-) 7. You can calibrate your scores with that. The average Senate score was 27 and one Senator scored 104 (enough to bring up the average by a point or two). Since this is a REPUBLICAN environmental group you can safely assume that those 100s would be average in the Democratic camp. So, if there are any Democratic Senators from fossil fuel producing states, look for them in the upper range first should anybody apply the methodology and values of this REPUBLICAN environmental group to the Democrats.

By the way, the fact that half of the press release (and I AM sure that it is a press release) is given to the opinions of one H. Sterling Burnett gives you an idea. Yes, it gives you a very clear concept of "Republican environmentalism".

Give George W. Bush his usual mark: a gentleman's C. Green is good enough for him and his rich friends at home, but don't go asking for any for you and yours in public. He probably has a Sierra Club calendar hidden away in a drawer at the ranch where the press can't see it.

Go ahead. Drill in Lincoln's head. Just check James Imhofe's amygdala for natural gas first.

Are terrorists known to be really outgoing?

Since when are Democrats anti-business?

Ball Sack Obama: Darwin's Prophet: Obviously, this is more important and has a bigger impact on the environment than the way they govern and what laws they try and pass.

That's a fancy way to say "Do as I say, not as I do."

And having a house like Bush's while consistently trying to cripple environmental restrictions, alternative energy, etc. is just a form of propaganda. "Sure I increased Mercury levels, raised air pollution standards, vetoed car fuel efficiency standards, and continued the idiotic energy policy that keeps us tied to the Middle East, but look at my house! That totally makes up for it."

"most pro-business" Democrats

You could have saved yourself some typing and just used the DLC's acronym.

This sniveling reminds me a lot of Hanoi Jane's crying about how the grenades the US used in Vietnam were too lethal, unlike the rockets her communist friends fired at random into Saigon.

Just some facts.

The United States as not made a new conventional land mine in about 4 decades. I have seen some with packaging dates of 1952. It has not used its scatterable mne systems much as all and thsoe systems have a self destruct mechanism. Prior to the land mine treaty Italy was the biggest western exporter of land mines, making some pretty high tech stuff. Saddam was one of their biggest customers.

US conventional mines are mainly used at the DMZ in Korea and between GITMO and the rest of Cuba.
The US put is effort into developing scatterable mines which have not seen much use.

The US has used cluster bombs in the Gulf wars but at risk to its own personnel, went about cleaning them up. cluster bombs are not much used by the US anymore it being more practicle to use precision weapons which limit the collateral damage and is easier/safer to clean up after. For example the MLRS rocket used to primarily have a cluster mutions warhead. However the most used version now is one withe a precison high explosive warhead.

For the record the biggest threat to civilians has not been the mines or scatterable bombs of the United States but those of the fomre Soviet Union, its client states and organizations.

In Central America the biggest threat was always the mines and boobytraps of communtist terrorists insugencies not the mines of government forces. The biggest minefield clean up in Asia was not US weapons in Vietnam but the mines Vietnam layed along the Cambodia-Thai border after they invaded in 1978. In Afghanistan it is not U.S. mines and cluster bombs that are the hazard but those left over from the Soviet invasion.


Keeping the cluster bombs in the inventory makes sense should you have to deal with massed attacks or suppression of enemy artillery. For example the Iranians used human waver tactics in their war with Iraq and the North Koreans have a lot artillery aimed at South Korea.

*Does a little digging around in the source report on the the controversial local issue*

Hmm, nothing in the source report card on Mike Simpson and CIEDRA. Report Card Fails, Epically.

BMulligan: MFL: [stupid graphic]

The_Sponge: Just look at California...the Democrats there have turned it into the economic development agency for Nevada and Arizona.

Wait - you guys really don't think that the Democratic Party is totally in the pocket of corporate interests? Really?

How odd!

Ignorance is bliss for some apparently.

Terrorists are hard-working?

hasty ambush: Just some facts.

1. You posted this in the wrong thread.

Republicans are pro business in the same sense that a Mother loves her child if she lets eat all the candy he wants and stay up past his bedtime.

See the predatory lending caused housing bubble.

Business is best off when moderate regulation keeps it checked, but yes there are a lot of democrats which inhibit business too.

vernonFL 2008-05-30 04:58:31 PM
I know a lot of conservatives who hunt and fish and enjoy nature and don't want to see it destroyed.

I called my one friend a 'tree hugger' once and he got pissed, but he will sit up in a tree for days shooting at deer. He lives in a tree in the middle of the woods for a week, but don't call him a 'tree hugger'. LOL

Deer = natural creature, your friend = destroying it

If he's eating it, i have no problem, but if he's conquering/destroying it for sport, then yeah, he's not a tree hugger

Dancin_In_Anson: Who owns which home?

And who will promptly sell said home and move back to Houston after his term is over? And who built said house strictly as a election-year prop to convince voters that he isn't a blue-blood, douchebag east-coast elitist who would sooner fly to the moon than do a day of actual hard, manual labor?

/And wouldn't he be swell to have a beer with?

Green Repbulican = Conservationist
Green Democrat = Environmentalist

That's all.

That's like being the smartest kid with down syndrome.

Etchy333: BOOO! All Republicans hate nature and the environment!

/learn some history kids...

If you vote for someone based on how "green" they are then you should know that we now vote on wednesdays so just show up then.

Environmental whackos are the most dangerous people to the human race

Greenest Republicans? That's the same thing as Straightest Republicans.

steamingpile: Environmental whackos are the most dangerous people to the human race

Funny, I thought it was mass-murderers or maybe religious nuts with their hands on nuclear weapons.

I'm way more "green" than my liberal friends, and especially the little democrats in training that litter my street constantly.

Yassar Arafat walks away with Nobel Peace Prize, whistling...

BobtheFascist: Green Repbulican = Conservationist
Green Democrat = Environmentalist

There are so many different groups that now use the "green" umbrella, that it has lost much of it's meaning. So many groups now specialize in one or more nich areas that they often find themselves opposing each other. Some of these groups include:

1)naturalist
2)preservationist
3)conservationist
4)NIMBYS
5)anti-development/materialism
6)Animal Rights
7)Zero Population Growth
8)Anti-grazing
9)Anti OHV


Of course there is overlap in many of these groups and even within these nich groups, manifestos can range from reformation all the way to radical. In fact, it can be argued that the variation within the environmental movement is very much similar to a major political party.

Group chooses the "Greenest Republicans." Isn't that like choosing the "laziest terrorists" or "most pro-business" Democrats? (49) Clicked 264 times; posted to Politics on Fri, 30 May 2008 at 4:43 PM
===============

Sad as it sounds, I know not a single democrat that cares for the environment.

I mean, I'd be fine if they would say 'Ok, I don't believe in global warming... how about let's tackle deforestation, the massive pesticide epidemic, and the pollution problem instead?'

But no, they think we're nice happy souls living blissfully in harmony with the Earth. I mean, seriously, it pisses me the hell off.