A detailed list of the bad things Bush did while in presidency

[Sava]

I guess the biggest misconception that you guys have of me is that I am part of the " BNUSH IS STUPID AND USA R EVIL!!!!!!!!111111" mudslinging monkey school". This may be hard to believe, but I'm not. I wasn't posting here when Clinton was in office, so you guys never had the pleasure of hearing my anti-Clinton rants. In REALITY, I'm just a cynical bast4rd who believes in holding people responsible. The Presidency is a powerful position. As President, one can do a lot of good, and likewise, a lot of evil. I believe in holding people accountable. I'm also an obnoxious @sshole. Combine these two personality traits, and you get ME!! Because Republicans are in power, both in Congress and the Presidency, they get the blaim for most of the problems we talk about on these forums.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
But may I ask you a question (because I really don't know)... What has you country done since then? Have all they done is bemoan the loss of the treaty... or have they since gone out and made changes in your country that actually help?

Well, France has been one of the best developed countries regarding air pollution, because of a decades-old policy opposed to the use of oil or coal (a Gaullist attempt to be as little dependant from foreign oil as possible). As a result, 75% of France's electricity is nuclear, and most of the rest is hydraulic, making our power production almost 100% air-clean.
Cars have become more fuel efficient, especially since the oil crises, and there are many tax incentives for individuals to take steps to reduces their energy consumption. Many cars now use liquid natural gas as a fuel, which doesn't create greenhouse gases (but they're not the majority). Public transportation, such as mass-transit and trains are efficient and transport a very significant mass.

Some timid steps have been taken to reduce truck-pollution (the construction of a truck-train tunnel under the Alps), because freight transportation has always been our weak point in this regard. But these efforts have been interrupted too early by our new government because of a tight budget. Our new government gives a very low priority to the environment, and generally continues the policies of the past. Our environment minister is also incompetent for the job. Such an inaction is a bad thing, but at least we had a pretty good starting position.

EU countries have dispatched the extent of pollution reduction they should do regarding Kyoto. Between 2008 and 2012, Germany is to reduce it's emissions by 21% from 1990 level, France can stay unchanged, and Greece is allowed a 15% increase.

Germany is on the bad way since it abandoned nuclear energy (it buys loads of nuclear electricity from France though). Germany intends to begin its policy at the beginning of 2005 . I've seen the German State has invested massively into a massive offshore windmill-platform though. This indeed isn't enough, and if I were to list Schröder's failures, I'd definitely list his inaction about air pollution

[johncmcleod]

Am I the only one who imagines JohnMcLeod's face when he'll discover what has become of his thread ?

I came back to the thread to find 4 pages of nothing. This is strange though. Everyone seemed to be very angry about Bush's decision about the Kyoto treaty, and now it looks like it's accepted that he did the right thing.

Anyway, all the righties say "Bush is a great president." But they can't find anything to back it up. The leftists say "Bush sucks," but they don't have anything to back it up either. So who is right?

Whoever talked of Saddam giving weapons to our enemies is very wrong. THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QUADA! How many times does this have to be stated? Do you honestly think that Saddam is going to give away 'terrible weapons' to another group he can't even trust! Saddam got his finger pointed at for 911 and he had nothing to do with it. What do you think the American public will think when a terrorist group without the means of producing chemical weapons who attacks the US with those weapons? They'll point the finger at Saddam, and Iraq will get invaded.

And BTW, when did Saddam aid someone attacking the US? That is after all what that person said.

And the thought of Saddam attacking the US with chemical weapons is absurd. I already explained why a few pages ago.

[Ming]

Thanks for the info Spiffor. Now I know more than I did before.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess this thread has proven one thing. The enemies of Bush will try to blame him for everything under the sun in the hopes that one will stick. The ridiculous blaming him for Kyoto is simply the most glaring.

I don't blame him for things he hasn't done, but about the things he did like Kyoto

where do you get the idea we blame him for every bad thing in the world?

[Dis]

I supported Bush up to a few months ago before the Iraq war.

But something really bothers me about him.

I do believe he's better than Clinton, but that isn't saying much.

Why can't we get good leaders? Where are they?

[Berzerker]

Olaf -

Yeah, like you were self-sufficient in oil. Why did your army "secure" the Iraqi oil fields before anything else?

I don't take empty statements seriously if they are not backed up by arguments. Now you remind me of Fez (which almost means "fart" in Swedish...)

I'd say the second quote compliments the first well enough. Anyway, what do Iraqi oil fields have to do with my comment about the US being the biggest consumer and producer (seems quite obvious and natural for the biggest producer of goods to be the biggest consumer too)? How did you reach the conclusion I was saying the US doesn't import oil? If you say I didn't make that statement, then explain just what you're responding to. Second, those oil fields were secured because they are needed to fund Iraq's rebuilding and provide oil for export and domestic consumption. If US troops didn't secure them and Iraqis loyal to Saddam blew them up, you'd undoubtedly complain about Bush not protecting the oil fields.

[Az]

. Many cars now use liquid natural gas as a fuel, which doesn't create greenhouse gases

I think you're wrong here.

natural gas, while burning, still gives off the old Water+C02 combination.

[Spiffor]

Az:
Sorry, I'm no chemist. It seems you're right, this particular fuel does produce pollution, but at a much lower pace. I was also wrong, as it's not a natural gas, but a specific product of oil refining.

From the Vivendi glossary

GPL (gaz de pétrole liquéfié)
Composé d’environ 80% de butane (C4H10) et de 20% de propane (C3H8) en France, le GPL est un carburant « propre », issu du raffinage du pétrole brut. Par rapport au gazole, l’utilisation du GPL dans les transports collectifs permet de réduire de 50% les émissions d’oxyde d’azote, de 50% celles des monoxydes de carbone et de 90% celles des hydrocarbures et particules.

"GPL (liquefiated petroleum gas)
Made of ca 80% butane (C4H10) and 20% propane (C3H8) in France, GPL is a "clean" fuel that comes from rening crude oil. In comparison with gasoline, the use of GPL in public transportation cuts nitrogen oxyd emissions by 50%, carbon monoxyd by 50% and hydrocarbons by 90%"
I assume the greenhouse gases are hydrocarbons (that's what I understand with "water+CO2 combination"). This fuel is a step in the right direction, and its use becomes more widespread in France, despite still being far from the majority.

[Sandman]

Not signing the US up to a global ban on antipersonnel landmines. A real no-brainer, this one.

Weapons proliferation on a quite ludicrous scale, completely at odds with the threat of terrorism.

Utterly hypocritical policies regarding free trade ond open markets. And yes, the EU is a **** with regards to this as well.

Pressurising third world countries to respect drug company patents.

[MattH]

Originally posted by Sandman
Pressurising third world countries to respect drug company patents.

This one just makes me . WHY can't they make AFFORDABLE drugs and still turn a profit. It's so bad here they're going across the border (to Canada) to get prescriptions filled- and the companies are trying to stop it! .

[Az]

I guess the biggest misconception that you guys have of me is that I am part of the " BNUSH IS STUPID AND USA R EVIL!!!!!!!!111111" mudslinging monkey school". This may be hard to believe, but I'm not.

I never said I was talking about you.

Sorry, I'm no chemist. It seems you're right, this particular fuel does produce pollution, but at a much lower pace. I was also wrong, as it's not a natural gas, but a specific product of oil refining.

That's ok. everyone calls it natural gas, anyway. Seriously, though, natural gas' only good properties are the quality of combustion, and lakc of pollutants such as sulfur. it produces just as much CO2, the greenhouse gas, as the next thing.

small hydrocarbons, e.g. methane, are also greenhouse gases but the bulk of the greenhouse effect is made by CO2, the product of their combustion.

[MrFun]

Has this thread been Savaized?

[johncmcleod]

Was Clinton that bad? What did he do besides lying to the public? Fill me in on what I don't know, I wasn't into politics during his administration.

[MrFun]

As I have mentioned before john -- Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 as a way to kowtow to some Republicans who had a homophobic agenda.