• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Whatever happened to Republicans standing up for clean air?

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The GOP motto now is politics and profits before people.

Similar predictions of economic doom and enormous cost came in 1970 — notably from the automobile industry — when a Republican president, Richard Nixon, signed the Clean Air Act.

Since that year of the first Earth Day, America has seen a 68 percent reduction in common air pollutants, while vehicle miles driven have increased by 167 percent. The nation’s gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, is up more than 212 percent.

In those days, and afterward, a bevy of distinguished Republicans stood at the forefront of environmental protection and the campaign to clean up America’s air.

George H.W. Bush promised in 1988 to be the “environmental president” and midwifed a bipartisan plan to curb sulfur dioxide emissions that caused acid rain and killed marine life in thousands of lakes.

The Clean Air Act amendments passed the Senate on an 89-11 vote. What did Mitch McConnell say then? “I had to choose between cleaner air and the status quo. I chose cleaner air.” With the Grand Teton as backdrop, President Bush (I) signed the anti-acid rain legislation into law.

GettyImages_160341408-235x300.jpg


Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader. He once said: “I had to choose between cleaner air and the status quo. I chose cleaner air.” Now, he decries efforts to cut carbon emissions..
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Typical far left extreme liberal lie and misinformation.

Prove it or apologize for another nonsense answer.

Please show where it is a lie that the Clean Air Act was not passed under Nixon.

Please show where the comment on George H.W. Bush is a lie.

Please show where McConnell never said that “I had to choose between cleaner air and the status quo. I chose cleaner air.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BY the way the extreme far left liberal lie is that if we do not do it the extreme left wing liberal way we do not want to do it at all.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BY the way the extreme far left liberal lie is that if we do not do it the extreme left wing liberal way we do not want to do it at all.

You have yet to address the OP. Why did Republicans change from wanting to protect the environment to that of caring more for politics and profits than people?
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
The article is unsourced. Somehow you think putting a picture up is proof, lately. But I cannot find a link to this piece.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please show where McConnell never said that “I had to choose between cleaner air and the status quo. I chose cleaner air.”

This is just silly. No one has to prove something DIDN'T happen. The burden of proof is on proving something DID happen.

Examaple: Prove to me that Obama has never said "Allahu Akbar." You can't. You shouldn't have to. The burden of proof is to prove that he has said it.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
ITL, the piece you put up says Obama's plans have drawn BIPARTISAN ire. Are the democrats culpable in this, as well ?
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We can expect electricity to increase in price by 300% in some areas. Obama said long ago that was OK with him. Great help for the economy.:rolleyes:

CTB may be the only one here that can afford the increase. Millions of people can't.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ITL, the piece you put up says Obama's plans have drawn BIPARTISAN ire. Are the democrats culpable in this, as well ?

The question is why did the Republicans change from wanting to protect the environment to protecting their own politics and profits at the expense of the health of children and adults?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The question is why did the Republicans change from wanting to protect the environment to protecting their own politics and profits at the expense of the health of children and adults?


Why the right turn at the expense of people's health?

Kill more bears. Produce more oil and greenhouse gases that are causing extreme weather events. Eliminate a major mass transit option for car-dependent California.Yes, Republicans pander to an anti-government segment. I get it. But the Republican Party in California has not been anti-environment in the past. Golden State Republicans have supported environmental policy, even created it. So fellas, why the right-turn on green?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...atorial-Candidates-Move-Right-on-Green-Issues
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why the right turn at the expense of people's health?

You need to rephrase the question. Essentially you are asking "Why do Republicans want to kill children?" which is not a valid question.

More likely is that Republicans oppose overly restrictive government regulations without solid scientific proof that the regulations would be effective.

It's yet another example of Democrats seemingly having good intentions and wanting to implement policy that may or may not solve a problem. I would guess that 90% of new legislation from the Democrats fall under this umbrella.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Less RINOs in the GOP ? That's a good thing.

So you agree that it is better to let air pollution rise which will result in more asthma attacks, more people coming down with asthma and more heart attacks? So, profits are more important than people?

 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
False question. Not answering it.

And we're still waiting for you to back up your numbers on the other thread.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
More likely is that Republicans oppose overly restrictive government regulations without solid scientific proof that the regulations would be effective.

It's yet another example of Democrats seemingly having good intentions and wanting to implement policy that may or may not solve a problem. I would guess that 90% of new legislation from the Democrats fall under this umbrella.

Oh, the evidence from the past 50 years is there.

However, the question is why have the Republicans changed their position now from protection to allowing increased degradation of the environment? There is no question that will result in more health issues for many people.

Why do you think they changed?
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Whatever happened to Republicans standing up for clean air?


They gave up due to all the hot air in Congress
 
Top