What is Digg?85 Comments
- inactive, on 10/22/2008, -8/+54The Bush Cabal not only hates human beings, but is hostile to every living creature on earth.
- stonecircle, on 06/11/2009, -2/+44Polar bears are starving to death, birthing fewer cubs and drowning as sea ice disappears and their search for food becomes more difficult. Scientists at the U.S. Geologic Survey say that polar bears could disappear from Alaska within 50 years, driven to extinction by habitat loss and global warming.
Despite the risk of extinction, Governor Palin has launched an all-out effort to eliminate protections for threatened polar bears -- a move that could lead to more polar bears dying of starvation and drowning, and more being killed by wealthy trophy hunters.
According to the Anchorage Daily News, she covered up evidence from her own scientists showing the need for polar bear protections. Now she’s doing the bidding of the oil companies and trophy hunters, suing the federal government to stop the listing of polar bears as a threatened species.
As governor, Sarah Palin has been a disaster for polar bears, wolves and other wildlife. A heartbeat away from the presidency, she could do even worse. - BishkekBuddy, on 10/22/2008, -5/+43I sure hope that President Obama and a Democratic Congress can undo some of the horrific things this idiot is doing in his final days - not to mention the horrific things he's done for the past 8 years! And I desperately hope that some other nation charges the whole kit and kaboodle of them with war crimes to make them pay personally for their evil.
- MrSquirrel, on 10/22/2008, -1/+23He's been doing this kind of thing quietly all along, while all eyes are on the war and economy. Do these people care about anything but their own enrichment?
- eatsushi, on 10/23/2008, -1/+17Why does he do this? Honestly, I really want him to say he's "just like us regular folks" to my face...then I can kick his ass like a regular citizen. What an *****.
- ace429k, on 10/23/2008, -1/+15Palin said polar bears will adapt when the ice is gone. wtf!? voting for McCain/Palin is 4 more years of Bush policies on Endangered Species. which means extinction for a lot of species.
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -0/+12What the ***** is with that thumbnail?
- inactive, on 10/22/2008, -2/+11As much as I bash both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats are historically far more sensible on environmental issues. The Green Party and Ralph Nader, however, put environmental concerns front and center. The Democrats should take notes from Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
- Wryly, on 10/23/2008, -0/+8Will the GOP be added to the list?
- duggdowncatisad, on 10/23/2008, -3/+11BUSH = EPIC FAIL
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -0/+6If it wasn't for that horse, she never would've made it through college...
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -1/+7How is your congresscritter on environmental issues?
The League of Conservation Voters publishes a useful scorecard.
http://www.lcv.org
Many states also have a League of Conservation Voters, in Maryland it's
http://www.mdlcv.org - inactive, on 10/23/2008, -3/+8@Alias1431 would you care to defend Bush's environmental record? Or you were just kidding, I hope.
- Coffae, on 10/23/2008, -1/+5I wish Bush was on the Endangered Species list.
- rz8472, on 10/23/2008, -0/+4Damn you, Dirk Kempthorne!
- llamaspit, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3By the way, singularityv, as an "individualist", do you stand for the rights of every individual, or just those who agree with you?
It's also interesting that you call for a war against environmentalists. How would that war go? If you gather a group of like-minded people together for your "side", would each member still maintain their own "individuality"? Seems to me that as soon as you organize that group, you all then start looking like an "army", which, as an individualist, you must certainly be wholly against. - Discola, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3If they're all gone, we don't have to try and protect them! Brilliant!
/sarcasm...you never know on Digg - ace429k, on 10/23/2008, -0/+3http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPri ... just for a little proof just in case someone calls me a liar.
- llamaspit, on 10/23/2008, -2/+5singularityv, what a definitively idiotic statement about Nader. That's gotta be a record for the largest surplus of mindless, uneducated, misinformed drivel ever to be expressed in so few words. Quite an accomplishment, I commend you on such an achievement.
Just so you know, Nader helped pass the following:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act (1968)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
So if you like having potable water, a safe car or truck, clear and honest information about the food you eat, a safe workplace, and a reasonable flow of information from your government, then Nader is at least partially responsible for your "way of life". If, however, you don't think these things are important, then by all means, try to get Nader locked up. I suspect you won't find many to support your cause. - Frozo, on 10/23/2008, -1/+4Sorry, can someone please explain the difference between this and Bush finally sticking his ***** in our already bleeding asses?
- mrzeero, on 10/23/2008, -2/+5Kill baby kill!
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -1/+3endangered species? http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/29/23885909ou0. ...
- nemo001, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Going from a review of whether "dams, power plants and other federal projects could harm species" to "Bush Rushing to Dispose of Endangered Species" is idiotic. This is more a story about clearing the way to end dependence on foreign oil and providing cleaner energy by anticipating the contents of environmental lawsuits to halt power production facilities. Not "disposing of endangered species." Obama or McCain will OK the building of new power facilities. Both leaders and most Americans will accept the trade off of using lands that might impact plant and animal species for the overall good of the environment. Get used to it.
- MiserableTruth, on 10/23/2008, -1/+31. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4785924/
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13300363/
I don't like Bush, and I certainly don't want McCain to win and become Bush 2.0, but credit must be given when due. He's also done the most for AIDS work in Africa.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22042908/
Though his abysmal performances in the Katrina situation, Iraq, and this one with the endangered species is sure to tarnish his record beyond repair, so I don't mind making him look good once or twice. :) - ogremidget, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah, humans are natural, but driving automobiles isn't. The problem I have with these Environmentalists is that they are still driving their automobiles, still eating cows, etc. Why don't they practice what they preach?
As for George Bush, he needs to be quiet until his term is done. - financedude2, on 10/23/2008, -1/+3Does this mean we can hunt anything from low flying helicopters?
- zippy757, on 10/23/2008, -2/+4...in case you don't know it, in virtually every 'public comment' environment, be it the government, or from the corporate world, there are predefined evaluation criteria for reading them, i.e. like 'agree' 'disagree' 'confused' 'no opinion' 'bush sucks,' and all the readers do is very quickly evaluate each comment and put it in a bucket, for later use in statistical analysis.
No one ever really reads the comments in their entirety. They are looking for general trends. Then the marketing types, or in government land, look for sound bites, whose use then provides the illusion to the public that every comment was deeply investigated. - greenfyre, on 10/23/2008, -1/+3Instead of a single biologist hired by a pro-hunt territorial Gov't, posted on a Denier site, how about:
"They reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision." http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ - ugmold, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2I hope they hang this bastard
- offrdbandit, on 10/23/2008, -3/+5War crimes... heh...
Bush haters are so cute when they rant and flail about.
Was Clinton a war criminal for enforcing the Iraqi No-Fly Zones (which the UN called "illegal")? Was Clinton a war criminal for intervening in Somalia? A fanatic opposed to his politics could make an argument for both of these actions being war crimes, just as you claim Bush is a war criminal. Such charges are idiotic in the case of both Presidents.
This "war crimes" crap is just that... crap. If you don't like Bush's policies, the war, etc, at least form an intelligent statement to that affect. - Qeveren, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Congratulations, dusanmal, that has to be one of the most blatant examples of a False Dilemma I've ever seen.
- stormofswords, on 10/23/2008, -1/+3well, except for the sociopathic lack of empathy and the disgusting sense of entitlement.
- chibichibie, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2If you allow endangered species to die out, then eventually the entire world will die out, including humans. Everything's connected, whether we like it or not. It just may take generations, but it wouldn't affect us "now". Such a selfish group of people.
- plainOldFool, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1senate.gov is a denier website??? And polarbearsinternational.org isn't biased?
- DestroyFascism, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Money is GOD!
- plainOldFool, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1great, now that will be stuck in my head and I'll die of an burst blood vessel in my brain.
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -4/+5Use less energy. Consume less consumer crap. That's a pretty good start.
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Here's his "Healthy Forests" scam debunked
http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyfor ...
http://www.lcv.org/campaigns/2004-presidential/
President George W. Bush's record on environmental issues is the worst for any President in recent memory. Policy changes that effectively roll back over 30 years of bipartisan environmental protections and side with corporate polluters has earned this president the first failing grade on LCV's Presidential Report Card. His unprecedented neglect and hostility toward the America's environment has also earned President Bush and Vice President Cheney the top spot on LCV's Dirty Dozen list of anti-environment candidates -- the first ever designation for the Executive Branch in LCV's history. - AmidTheSnow, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Good.
- offrdbandit, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1"Increase funding for education in third world countries, to improve human relations, agricultural and industrial practices, etc."
Will you be paying with cash, check, or credit?
"Legalize industrial hemp!"
I say we make it legal to put dumbasses out of their misery.
"You just have to stop thinking about it all in terms of 'Helping the environment is anti-industry'"
If it weren't anti-industry, industries would have embraced such methods willingly for their associated benefits.
Clean is less efficient than dirty. Clean is less profitable than dirty. Industry runs on profit. Clean is harmful to industry.
It's quite simple. Harmful doesn't mean it destroys industry, but it's certainly not beneficial (from an economic perspective) for industries to adopt less efficient processes. - carabou, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2you people have got to be kidding? When did your mother drop you on your head? To come to that conclusion about "bush" is just wrong! But the dig bots eat this stuff up! i personal am glad all the bots are spending their time on digg instead of the real world!
Did you guys know that Obama and his brothers are going to make Baby's get piercing and taboos! i saw it on you tube and they never lie! - inactive, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1"You Betcha!"
^_~ - Qeveren, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1You mean "if the choice is between a slight hiccup in the growth of my luxury and convenience and letting inferior species die, I'd rather that inferior species die", don't you?
- omgwtflawl, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2Guys, the EPA can handle endangered species just fine. It -not the ESA- has actually saved animals from extinction. The ESA was created to control the land use of citizens, and it is extremely effective at that.
- StrangeFamous, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2HAVE FEWER BABIES.
Start encouraging more widespread use of birth control, INSTEAD of advocating abstinence as the only option.
Increase funding for education in third world countries, to improve human relations, agricultural and industrial practices, etc.
Invest in renewable resources and ecologically safe materials...
Legalize industrial hemp!
You don't have to sacrifice jobs to help improve the state of the planet. You just have to stop thinking about it all in terms of "Helping the environment is anti-industry" - greenfyre, on 10/23/2008, -1/+2"So either you believe in evolution and it is fine to extinct animals"
Oh *****! It is also "natural" (ie can be documented in the wild) to steal, murder, rape children, etc ... are you coming out in favour of those too? - mrzeero, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1The earth is just a larger version of Easter Island. Their same policies did not work out so well.
- offrdbandit, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1@ Qeveren
It's certainly a False Dilemma, but be made his point poorly. If you assume evolutionists can illogically contort their philosophy, then environmental activism makes sense. A logical evolutionary philosophy would clearly follow dusanmal's illustration: evolution means I can kill X if I want and am capable.
If a logical evolutionary philosophy does not suit you, that's fine, but artificially injecting opinion and belief into such a philosophy (such as the belief that animals should be protected from human eradication) makes such a philosophy no more "intelligent" or "scientific" or "logical" than any religious philosophy.
@ greenfyre
You presume he's "coming out in favor" of evolution. He's absolutely right evolutionists tend to arbitrarily draw some metaphysical barrier between what by evolution one is entitled to do (basically kill anything that's weaker than you) and what one "should" do.
Whether you think it's "*****" or not to highlight this logical disconnection is irrelevant. - sering, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1http://greatcar.freehostia.com
http://forexposed.com
http://tembol.freehostia.com/
http://dianika.com/hotel
http://dianika.com/insurance/
http://remboka.freehostia.com
http://wekoman.ej.am
http://wungka.freehostia.com/
http://unik.blogetery.com/ - MelissaOfTroy, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1I don't see how wanting to protect an already-existing law is "eco fanaticism." If there were legit reasons for trying to weaken the ESA, they would take the time to review the issue. But this administration is just being shady and trying to rush the issue. Those dams and power plants have to go somewhere, but they don't need to be built right this second.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 