Thank you for the links. I may have to reevaluate the passing grade for Bush on environmentalism that I mentioned previously. And actually, since I wrote that, I've remembered that his administration and the Republican controlled Congress allowed golf courses to be included as a portion of the wetlands that are required to be protected by federal law - thus leaving legitimate wetlands unprotected. So I probably needed to rethink that, anyway.You should read more.
Timelines of Bush anti-environmentalism: <snip>
In Dayton3's defense, I believe I am mostly on your side in this discussion, and I also thought you were referring to ethnic minorities. It seems a reasonable assumption, and if that is what he thought, then there was nothing racist about Dayton3 refuting part of it, since he thought you were bringing race into it first.What a repulsive post.
This goes to one of my pet peeves in political discourse. Can't we have disagreements and discussions on these topics without assuming our opponents are operating in bad faith? I consider it entirely likely that when I disagree with someone, one of us simply lacks data, or has seen reason to dismiss data as unreliable, and is making the best assessment they can with that data missing or discounted.
This isn't a Red Team vs Blue Team game, and if we keep playing like it is, the actual opponents are going to destroy us.