Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/24/07 01:47 AM, Bolo wrote:

So in conclusion, Mr. President, it's too late for you to salvage your administration. Let's just hope it's not too late for America to do the same.

Way to post pointlessly.

Bush has had the same enviornmental policy and alternate engery since he entered the presidency. You were just too stupid not to base everything off the media.

Congrats, you're an idiot.

At 1/24/07 06:29 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/23/07 03:39 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 1/23/07 03:31 PM, ReiperX wrote:

with the President's approval rating in the low to mid 30's...

23% last time i checked :)

Bzzt, try again.

It ranges from as high as 50%, to as low as 33%, depending on who you ask.

Well exccuuuuussseee me lol....23 and 28 look alike when you don't have the glasses on haha.

Anyways, I thought Bush did very well with the address. He's finally addmitting to his past mistakes and trying to make ammends for things he's completely ignored (global warming). I think his policy on immigration could work pretty well, it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

I didn't pay much attention to the health care portion. Anyone want to fill me in?

His idea about cutting emissions by 20% by 2017 seems very good. A little farfetched, but good none the less. If he can put a plan in place by that will cut the emissions by that much, it will be huge. Developing cars with better fleet ratings and more alternate fuel sources that burn cleaner will do wonders for the environment. Also, I think that the Democratic Congress will be more than happy to pass that one...IF Bush can really make that plan, that is.

I do, though, think that one of the most interesting things about the capitol that night, was the seating arrangements. Obama, Clinton, and Kennedy all right next to each other...how...quaint.

At 1/24/07 08:15 PM, random8982 wrote:

Anyways, I thought Bush did very well with the address. He's finally addmitting to his past mistakes and trying to make ammends for things he's completely ignored (global warming).

You'd hate me as president. If anyone pestered me with global warming when I have more important things to deal with, i'd tell all of you to go fuck off.

At 1/24/07 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: Don't care to waste that kind of time listening to Bushyboy, but I just read Reiper link to the health care changes, seems quite decent at face value. I would have to figure it out with my tax situation to see if it's really worth it (not that it really matters a Nuck anyway). Nice to see he finally 'flip-flopped' on climate change and global warming though.

He has actually had the SAME EXACT position since his inaugural address in 2001, its just that during those times there was less emphasis put on it by the public so he had no incentive to waste time in speeches discussing it. Just because he didn't have time to publically articulate it doesn't mean his policies didn't address it. It would have just been inappropriate to discuss it because the public wasn't really interested at that time, there were larger pressing issues that people wanted to know about that occupied his time; 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea all sorts of shit.

But little would you know due to your media, US government funding for alternative fuels (both research and production) has been much higher than in any other presidency.

People just want to uphold their stupid biases so they blow things out of proportion and only blame the US such as the fact that the US didn't sign the kyoto protocol. Nevermind the fact that India, China and other developing countries who were immune to the protocol will usurpe the US as the worlds largest polluters well before the Kyoto protocol would have even been put in full effect.

Who knows, maybe this will start a continuous rise in his approval ratings (providing he doesn't invade some country).

Liberals around the world will never allow that. It is in their interest to demonize everything president Bush does regardless of how wise his policies are.

People in the media will go to great lengths to turn public opinion against Bush no matter what he actually does. They do this by cunning distortion of facts and by using isolated bits of out-of-context information mixed with emotionally charged propaganda.

Already, I saw last night on that BBC show "The hour" with that douchebag that talks with a lisp meticulously try to discredit everything that Bush said in any way he could in the most petty, uninformed ways. He tried to dodge the fact that the US spends a larger portion of our money on alternative fuels than every other country in the world, by saying 'what about the 1.1 trillion spent on Iraq'. What a childish, typically liberal manuever. Always distorting the good the opponent does by taking it all out of context and using emotional rants to prove political views.

Now "the Hour" may not be 'the news' but the same thing has been done by all the other sources. All the Liberal news agencies have already planned out how they will systematically produce negative news to negate the positive that President Bush proposed.

And that is part of the reason why people have an unjustified hatred towards President Bush. Its all misinformation and political brainwashing. That is why a Canadian like you has had the false belief for 6 years that President Bush doesn't do anything about global warming.

Liberal media is a plague.

Oops, I meant the CBC show 'the hour'.

At 1/24/07 08:20 PM, Experimental wrote:

You'd hate me as president. If anyone pestered me with global warming when I have more important things to deal with, i'd tell all of you to go fuck off.

Well lucky for the rest of the world, by the time you're even ELIGIBLE for the presidency, Global Warming will be one of the biggest issues on your agenda if something about it isn't done now. :)

At 1/24/07 09:07 PM, random8982 wrote:

Well lucky for the rest of the world, by the time you're even ELIGIBLE for the presidency, Global Warming will be one of the biggest issues on your agenda if something about it isn't done now. :)

Don't waste my time with something that's not proven to be destructive. I only have 8 years, when i'm done you can then elect someone who cares. Now fuck off and quit pestering me.

At 1/24/07 09:24 PM, Experimental wrote:

Don't waste my time with something that's not proven to be destructive. I only have 8 years, when i'm done you can then elect someone who cares. Now fuck off and quit pestering me.

Ah but you started with me my friend.

And as far as destructive goes, how about a tsnumai or hurricane that is going to make Central Massachusetts beach front property, comepletely devour New Orleans, eat most of Florida, and obliterate most of the major cities in the United States? Global warming is pretty damn destructive the way I see it.

I didn't watch the state of the union address, did Bush announce any detailed plans on future energy sources in the United States?

Like does he have a plan for implementing more solar, wind, and nuclear?
Did he say anything about bio fuel use?

At 1/24/07 09:53 PM, random8982 wrote:

Ah but you started with me my friend.

I'm just playing the part.

Global warming is pretty damn destructive the way I see it.

And as far as I see it, it's not going to make much difference no matter what I do for 4-8 years.

At 1/24/07 09:56 PM, AdamRice wrote: I didn't watch the state of the union address, did Bush announce any detailed plans on future energy sources in the United States?

Like does he have a plan for implementing more solar, wind, and nuclear?
Did he say anything about bio fuel use?

He wants to reduce emissions in the United States by 20% by the year 2017 and increase the use of alternative fuel sources.

At 1/24/07 10:09 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 1/24/07 09:56 PM, AdamRice wrote: I didn't watch the state of the union address, did Bush announce any detailed plans on future energy sources in the United States?

Like does he have a plan for implementing more solar, wind, and nuclear?
Did he say anything about bio fuel use?

He wants to reduce emissions in the United States by 20% by the year 2017 and increase the use of alternative fuel sources.

That's kinda broad, to me that translates into: I want to do nothing.
Why can't he be more specific.

At 1/24/07 10:12 PM, AdamRice wrote:

That's kinda broad, to me that translates into: I want to do nothing.
Why can't he be more specific.

That was the summary of what he said...I'm sure you can go and look up his exact plans for it as I don't remember the exact wording.

At 1/24/07 10:12 PM, AdamRice wrote: That's kinda broad, to me that translates into: I want to do nothing.
Why can't he be more specific.

Becuase he's speaking an entire year worth of material in a 45 minute speech when other topics are taking the spotlight and he has to work with Congress before he can create any solid plans.

At 1/24/07 06:05 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/24/07 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: Nice to see he finally 'flip-flopped' on climate change and global warming though.

They've been his position this entire time. This is what happens you let the media get to you.

So you're saying Bush has always agreed on the effects of global warming?

At 1/24/07 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/24/07 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: Don't care to waste that kind of time listening to Bushyboy, but I just read Reiper link to the health care changes, seems quite decent at face value. I would have to figure it out with my tax situation to see if it's really worth it (not that it really matters a Nuck anyway). Nice to see he finally 'flip-flopped' on climate change and global warming though.

9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea all sorts of shit.

Well maybe Bush should have put down the war hammer for a moment to reflect on other very important issues.

But little would you know due to your media, US government funding for alternative fuels (both research and production) has been much higher than in any other presidency.

"your media"? Oh such as CBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, BBS, and lets not forget the internet? Are those the media outlets you were referring to? Well, considering my media is so wrong, maybe you can give me some hints on "quality" Cellardoor6 approved media outlets?

People just want to uphold their stupid biases so they blow things out of proportion and only blame the US such as the fact that the US didn't sign the kyoto protocol. Nevermind the fact that India, China and other developing countries who were immune to the protocol will usurpe the US as the worlds largest polluters well before the Kyoto protocol would have even been put in full effect.

China is the leading spender when it comes to renewable energy, tied with Germany actually. US taking 3rd place. In 2005 China spent $6 billion on renewable energy. This year, Bush will increase renewable energy funding by 22% for a total of $770 million. So if these are the facts, then how can you say "the US spends a larger portion of our money on alternative fuels than every other country in the world,"?

this cartoon fits the topic:

Bush is not a lame duck. He is a man who is not afraid to admit his mistakes. The liberal media is, once again, turning what Bush said agaisnt him. Did you even see the State of the Union? Or did you just go to newyorktimes.com?

At 1/25/07 03:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/25/07 02:19 PM, shohaib wrote: this cartoon fits the topic:

What the liberal print press media won't tell you.

ofcourse liberal media wont tell u that. but even so a not so impressive (51 percent confident U.S. will meet goals in Iraq). still remains the biggest topic

At 1/25/07 03:24 PM, texicomexico wrote: Bush is not a lame duck. He is a man who is not afraid to admit his mistakes. The liberal media is, once again, turning what Bush said agaisnt him. Did you even see the State of the Union? Or did you just go to newyorktimes.com?

i think u misunderstood the cartoon

Talk is cheap.

Lets see if anything can actually come of this or it's just empty words as usual.

At 1/25/07 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote:

So you're saying Bush has always agreed on the effects of global warming?

Yes, he has. Just not to the extent of people like Al Gore. But of course you wouldn't know this, you Canadian idiot.

At 1/25/07 09:44 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 1/24/07 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/24/07 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: Don't care to waste that kind of time listening to Bushyboy, but I just read Reiper link to the health care changes, seems quite decent at face value. I would have to figure it out with my tax situation to see if it's really worth it (not that it really matters a Nuck anyway). Nice to see he finally 'flip-flopped' on climate change and global warming though.

9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea all sorts of shit.

Well maybe Bush should have put down the war hammer for a moment to reflect on other very important issues.

Thats fucking retarded. Every time President Bush addresses other issues people accuse him of trying to change the subject away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you say that he SHOULD have changed the subject?

Either way, no matter what he articulates in his speeches he will either be demonized for trying to get people to ignore the wars by bringing up other issues such as global warming, renewable energy and so forth.

But while he talks about the wars more in depth then he is accused of not doing shit about global warming and addressing domestic issues...

You make me laugh.

But little would you know due to your media, US government funding for alternative fuels (both research and production) has been much higher than in any other presidency.

"your media"?

Well I should have said, "the media".

lets not forget the internet?

Oh yes the internet... the most credible source of information ever...

China is the leading spender when it comes to renewable energy, tied with Germany actually. US taking 3rd place. In 2005 China spent $6 billion on renewable energy. This year, Bush will increase renewable energy funding by 22% for a total of $770 million. So if these are the facts, then how can you say "the US spends a larger portion of our money on alternative fuels than every other country in the world,"?

Source?

But I already know those numbers are inaccurate or out of context, because my state alone boasts about the fact that we spent over $1 billion for farm waste and wood chip-derived ethanol in 2006. If those numbers you listed are accurate. then they probably only list the amount of money invested by federal tax money.

But the US spends much more via private organizations/companies, and state subsidies to related industries, thats how our country works much more of the economic decisions are made by the states and by people in the private sector.

That reminds me of how morons around the world accused the US of not giving enough aide to the victims of the 04 tsunami. But everyone left out the ENORMOUS amount of money that came from US charities, private organizations, and the fact that the US military was the first on scene to provide medical aide and build shelters (the costs of which weren't included because the study only included government-allocated aide).

At 1/25/07 10:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/25/07 09:44 AM, bcdemon wrote: lets not forget the internet?

Oh yes the internet... the most credible source of information ever...

Are you saying there are no credible sources of information on the entire internet?

China is the leading spender when it comes to renewable energy, tied with Germany actually. US taking 3rd place. In 2005 China spent $6 billion on renewable energy. This year, Bush will increase renewable energy funding by 22% for a total of $770 million. So if these are the facts, then how can you say "the US spends a larger portion of our money on alternative fuels than every other country in the world,"?

Source?

Here is a link for the China $6 billion bit.

And here is the one about Bush spending $770 million. I now see that this link is a year old. This one is new, and says Bush wants $1.6 billion over 10 years for renewable energy research.

But I already know those numbers are inaccurate or out of context, because my state alone boasts about the fact that we spent over $1 billion for farm waste and wood chip-derived ethanol in 2006. If those numbers you listed are accurate. then they probably only list the amount of money invested by federal tax money.

If you already know the correct numbers, then supply them please, with sources.

But the US spends much more via private organizations/companies, and state subsidies to related industries, thats how our country works much more of the economic decisions are made by the states and by people in the private sector.

If you're saying USA spends more as a whole (government and private), then your going to need a source with some numbers.

At 1/26/07 09:02 AM, bcdemon wrote:

If you're saying USA spends more as a whole (government and private), then your going to need a source with some numbers.

Since, afterall, you're too much of a lazy ass to do it yourself.

At 1/26/07 09:02 AM, bcdemon wrote:

If you're saying USA spends more as a whole (government and private), then your going to need a source with some numbers.

He doesn't need to supply a source, it's common knowledge genius. Over the past 20 years, the federal government has been downsizing itself and sending more business out to private enterprises. There are HUGE amounts of corporations that are funded majorly, if not entirely by federal funds. Stop being so damn lazy and use google, altavista, dogpile, ask jeeves, yahoo, msn, or any of the other million search engines out there.

At 1/24/07 06:41 PM, Experimental wrote: Bush has had the same enviornmental policy and alternate engery since he entered the presidency. You were just too stupid not to base everything off the media.

Congrats, you're an idiot.

Right. Because drilling for oil in an Alaskan wildlife preserve (emphasis on that last word) is a sure sign of someone who's concerned with the envirnoment.

And someone who's all but denied the concept of global warming for the past six years, despite rigorous evidence to the contrary, which is almost unilaterally accepted by scientists, both Republican and Democrat, who are the most informed resources on that front.

To deny what is staring you in the face is quite simply foolish and unreasonable.

At 1/26/07 06:35 PM, Bolo wrote:

To deny what is staring you in the face is quite simply foolish and unreasonable.

No, once again, you're just acting out of shear stupidity. Bush is concerned about the Enviornment and is concerned about global warming, HOWEVER not to the extent of you "nutjobs" who believe it will end the world someday.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. You can be concerned, just not the way you are. But I guess nothing is good enough unless he whole heartily agrees to that extent.

At 1/26/07 06:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Since, afterall, you're too much of a lazy ass to do it yourself.

I didn't make the statements that needs to be clarified jerkwad. When asked, I gave sources that back up my claims. Why don't you hurry up and die?

At 1/26/07 06:30 PM, random8982 wrote: Stop being so damn lazy and use google, altavista, dogpile, ask jeeves, yahoo, msn, or any of the other million search engines out there.

It's common knowledge that the US spends more money than any other country in the world on renewable energy? Really? If it's common knowledge, then proving it should be a snap.
And it's not being lazy if I ask him to back up his claims, as he did to me.