PDA

View Full Version : President Bush a Fur Supporter???



chrishall1979
01-20-05, 05:41 pm
I was already disgusted with the man, and knew how little he cared for the environment. But this is a new low the whole country should be ashamed of. Go check it out here. http://www.furisdead.com/feat-bushbeaver.asp?int=action_alert_enews

Chris

DocDolittle
01-20-05, 05:58 pm
I never really minded Bush(please, no comments on this statement) other than his environmental dealings, but quite frankly, that's repulsive. I've seen beavers in their natural habitat, and they are lovely creatures who obviously care for one another. Their social heirarchy is almost that of humans, and they remain close even after the children go through puberty. It disgusts me that he would do such a thing. What's the point in wearing fur and leather when there are different types of faux-fur and pleather that look real enough. And plus, a furry stetson is just plain tacky.

AngelsCavies
01-20-05, 06:51 pm
I think some one is say that Bush would do that. I beleive that Bush is against animal crulity. I dont think he would wear it too.

Himino
01-20-05, 07:12 pm
I think some one is say that Bush would do that. I beleive that Bush is against animal crulity. I dont think he would wear it too.
What? Are you saying he would or wouldn't wear it. I didn't understand the statement.

AngelsCavies
01-20-05, 07:23 pm
he would not wear it. Im saying that some one probably made up that crap

sofiemuffins
01-21-05, 08:41 am
I highly doubt that anyone made that up. He owns cattle ranches, and doesn't he hunt as well??

citronsoul
01-21-05, 10:09 am
http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=5731

This is another article about it.

citronsoul
01-21-05, 10:17 am
http://voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-01-14-voa77.cfm

This one includes pictures of the hat.

I for one, am not surprised.

“And that will all be done by hand. We have the George W. Bush logo in there in metallic red and silver. And then my right hand man, Jared, hand-laced the back of the sweatband. Normally they're just sewn together. This was hand laced together with kangaroo."

AngelsCavies
01-21-05, 04:04 pm
I dont think its a beaver skin hat and plus I know Bush loves animal. and why does everone always have something bad to say about him.

VoodooJoint
01-21-05, 10:00 pm
I know Bush loves animal. and why does everone always have something bad to say about him.
Maybe because he is an AWFUL human being and an absolutely miserable president.

You think Bush loves animals? You think he loves the environment? Try these “Bushisms” on for size.

-Bush has gone out of his way to attack animal advocates on his presidential campaign website! That’s right, in their bid for reelection to the White House, the Bush-Cheney 2004 team posted a report for hunters titled “John Kerry on Hunting,” which attacked not only the Democratic nominee, but also the entire animal protection community!

- the President’s campaign took aim at groups that work on a broad range of animal issues – from pet overpopulation to animal fighting to protecting habitat. He’s slammed two organizations that work to protect animals from cruelty

-President Bush has always portrayed himself as a friend to trophy hunters. He has hosted leaders of about 20 hunting organizations, including the Safari Club International, National Rifle Association, and U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. And as Governor of Texas, he was named “Governor of the Year” by the Safari Club – one of the world’s most influential and extreme trophy hunting organizations

- rolled back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions including pushing to increase domestic oil production by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling.

- Withdrew U.S. support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan

- rolled back rules that ban development on 60 million acres of national forest, lift new limits on the amounts of arsenic allowed in drinking water, and undo new cleanup regulations for federal surface mines. Environmentalists are also worried that Bush administration officials will revoke actions that designated large areas of land as protected national monuments.

-the Bush administration has shown that it is willing to bend any environmental regulation for its corporate friends. For example, Nissan was exempted from a regulation governing the fuel economy of their vehicle fleets
-Bush Administration replaced the Roadless Area Conservation Rule with a state petition process that essentially eliminates federal protections from logging and mining in millions of acres of national forests.

- President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 inadequately funds land conservation, wildlife protection, and the national parks.

I could go on but I think that is quite enough to more then make my point. Bush cares nothing for animals, animal rights, wildlife (unless it includes shooting it), the environment or even the air we breath and the water we drink. I don't know about you but I find it hard to believe that a man that would treat animals and the environment in such a callous way cares a wit about the majority of the people he "leads".

kkendall
01-22-05, 04:02 pm
Good grief Voodoojoint. You have interesting view points. Watch the cut and paste technique. Are you forgetting that our President answers to a Senate and Congress? Afterall, this is a democracy. You should really research your facts instead of jumping to false conclusions and jumping on the "bandwagon" of some undereducated interest groups.

mncavylover
01-22-05, 05:03 pm
It's a fact that he's not pro-environmentalism. Look at the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, look at his hunting, etc. You'll see that it's true.

sofiemuffins
01-25-05, 09:44 am
I dont think its a beaver skin hat and plus I know Bush loves animal. and why does everone always have something bad to say about him.
It is a Beaver skin hat...have you read the numerous articles about it???

VoodooJoint
01-25-05, 11:41 am
Good grief Voodoojoint. You have interesting view points. Watch the cut and paste technique. Are you forgetting that our President answers to a Senate and Congress? Afterall, this is a democracy. You should really research your facts instead of jumping to false conclusions and jumping on the "bandwagon" of some undereducated interest groups.
I'm not the only one with these view points. If you haven't noticed about half of the country agrees with me.

Nice try with the Democracy thing, but you are joking right? You do know that the President has his ways of pushing things through and creating loopholes right?

The Senate and congress has the Republican majority ...which way do you think their vote will go?

Feel free to educate yourself on the issues. I was able to put up facts about Bush. You told me to "double check". Guess what, I already did. Back up your opinion that I am wrong on these issues or your opinion means nothing. The facts are that Bush has done nothing positive for the Environment and has publically attacked animal rights supporters.

Here, Since you seem to refuse to educate yourself I’ve supplied origins and cross referenced my quotes.

-“Bush has gone out of his way to attack animal advocates on his presidential campaign website”
- “the President’s campaign took aim at groups that work on a broad range of animal issues...”
...Unfortunately his campaign website is closed but here is where I got my quote. I also saw this info myself on Bush’s website when it was up. I’m sure you did too...unless you didn’t actually bother researching a candidate you support. http://www.humaneusa.org/article.asp?article_key=109&n=1

-President Bush has always portrayed himself as a friend to trophy hunters...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116525,00.html
http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articleID=860&typeID=3&archive=1

- “rolled back campaign promises on clean air...
- Withdrew U.S. support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan.
- rolled back rules that ban development on 60 million acres of national forest...
-Bush Administration replaced the Roadless Area Conservation Rule ...”
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/presidential_endorsement/profile_bush.asp
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/07/MNG9H94VEF1.DTL
http://ea.pomona.edu/4candidates.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0330-03.htm

-the Bush administration has shown that it is willing to bend any environmental regulation for its corporate friends....
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/energy/index.asp

Just for good measure tryTHE BUSH RECORD

More than 300 Crimes against Nature
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record_print.asp

So in the end you think Bush is a peach and I think he's a poisoned apple. Ain't America great?

AngelsCavies
01-25-05, 12:24 pm
I voted for Bush and Im a republican too.

cornhill
01-25-05, 02:58 pm
I too, voted for Bush and I am a Republican. But I was under the impression that this was a Cavy Cage site. Not a site for political bashing, being it Bush or Kerry.

sofiemuffins
01-25-05, 03:03 pm
This topic is within the Vegetarians forum. I believe Teresa said topics that involve Animal welfare is okay to discuss here.

CavySpirit
01-25-05, 03:12 pm
Yes, it is.

VoodooJoint
01-25-05, 03:28 pm
These issues are related to animal and environmental welfare. I’m not bashing anyone. I’m stating cold hard facts about our president. Facts that prove he cares little about animal welfare or the environment.

If people are getting upset about what I am saying then they shouldn’t be upset with me. They should be upset with our country’s leaders. If you think I’m lying then do your best to prove it. If I’m wrong I will gracefully admit it. However, I did a lot of research for the 2000 election, during Bush’s 1st term, for the 2004 election and I will continue to monitor this man as he tramples animal rights, human rights and the environment.

I don’t understand why people feel the need to announce they voted for Bush. Is this supposed to upset me? It doesn’t. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to vote as they choose. I simply expect people to actually understand how and why they are casting their vote.

After all, democracy only works if people use their brains to think and get involved in the process. History has proved that people that allow themselves to act as sheep, go with the crowd and not think for themselves end up getting treated as sheep and once they realize their errors it’s too late. They are facing "slaughter" (<------ meant figuratively).

sasha
01-25-05, 06:29 pm
not everything that environmental groups say is true. For example, the EPA study about second smoke that declares it harmful- later in a court case it was declared that the scientists had wanted to prove that there was a correlation, the court said they flat out lied, and there was no increased risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke according to the EPA's own data, and any reliable statistical test that a first year college math or science student would know proves otherwise. I don't like second hand smoke, but I would still rather they had told the truth.

Another good example is PETA, most of the members are nice well intentioned people, however the higher up administration has given thousands of dollars to people who have openly, on camera and in court, declared themselves to be responsible for ARSON. This is provable because their tax records, as a nonprofit group, are public. In fact, on an HBO tv show, they had interviews with people associated with more main stream groups, SPCA's, etc who were willing to come right out and say that PETA was a terrorist organization. Also, their founder has made comments that their should be no circuses, horseback riding, or PETS- the phrase she uses is "total animal liberation", so if you'd like to support PETA, toss your pets in the yard so they can be "free".They are good for investigating animal cruelty and getting press, but if as many people donated money to the SPCA, they might be able to do just as much, without the arson.

Not to mention, I get really miffed about environmental groups that are really anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization, and use environmentalism as a self righteous platform for those ideas. I don't like Bush, but I come right out and say it, instead of faking concern about the environment just so I can shout about evil companies cutting down the rain forest. The companies are not the ones doing the cutting in rain forests, the starving, indigent peoples trying to feed their families are cutting it down. If any one of us was in the same situation, we'd probably be the first to pick up an axe, if it meant feeding our families. Those of us that are privileged enough to live near a grocery store need to think about those people before mouthing off.

I have a science degree, and the first thing they teach you is to forget everything you've been told thus far, and start again reading peer reviewed material from good scientific journals. They aren't necessarily easily accessible to everyone, they do use lots of jargon and overly complicated, formal language. But if you aren't willing to take the time to learn how to intepret reliable information, don't just pretend likes its ok to spout off whatever your favorite propaganda machine thinks you should be. Thirty years ago, the people who are now raging against global warming, were predicting an ice age, and FYI, its been getting colder again since the nineties.

Worse yet, this causes a lot of environmental groups to spend money fear mongering and not doing anything, instead of focusing on worthy, quantifiable issues. What if every dollar spent on leaflets with misinformation went to stopping live animal sales in pet stores?

The union of concerned scientists, including 48 nobel laureates, has come out against the Bush administration, even going so far as to suggest a hotline that government scientists could call when the government refused to publish, or insisted they changed their data.

I want environmental protection and animal welfare as much as the next person. However, I think we need to be responsible, dignified, and maintain scientific and moral integrity when working toward these goals.

Sparky
01-25-05, 07:19 pm
sorry kids, but statistics show, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat.

also voodoojoint is completely correct in his/her statements. just try and prove him/her wrong.

bush is a human rights criminal and he cares nothing for animal rights. just try and prove otherwise.

VoodooJoint
01-25-05, 08:03 pm
not everything that environmental groups say is true. For example, the EPA study about second smoke that declares it harmful...the court said they flat out lied,...
Very true that you can’t believe what all environmental groups say. That’s why I checked those accusations against this THE BUSH RECORD More than 300 Crimes against Nature
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/20...ecord_print.asp and double checked those dates and accusations against newspapers, online government updates and the like. They are true. If they are not please point out which are wrong along with your evidence so I can check it again.

As far as the second hand smoke thing...you got a little off topic and I’m not certain what you were getting at but personally I doubt that second hand smoke, or any smoke is non-risky. I don’t thing any of us need a scientific study to know that.


Another good example is PETA, most of the members are nice well intentioned people, however the higher up administration has given thousands of dollars to people who have openly, on camera and in court, declared themselves to be responsible for ARSON.
I don’t remember quoting PETA in any of my statements. In my opinion they go too far. Because of their controversial views I avoided using any info from their site.


Not to mention, I get really miffed about environmental groups that are really anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization, and use environmentalism as a self righteous platform for those ideas.
I agree. However, I can’t think of any environmental groups that are like that. Can you please tell me the names of these groups?


I don't like Bush, but I come right out and say it,
Was this aimed at me or environmental groups? I figured I was pretty clear on how I feel about Bush but if in case anyone missed my true feelings about Bush feel free to go to “The Kitchen Forum” and read the thread titled “Presidential Elcetion????” http://cavycages.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2981


instead of faking concern about the environment just so I can shout about evil companies cutting down the rain forest. The companies are not the ones doing the cutting in rain forests, the starving, indigent peoples trying to feed their families are cutting it down. If any one of us was in the same situation, we'd probably be the first to pick up an axe, if it meant feeding our families. Those of us that are privileged enough to live near a grocery store need to think about those people before mouthing off.
Sorry but the companies are cutting down the rainforests to provide mahogany and other hardwoods for various reasons and to clear cut grazing land for fast food chain cows. Do a search for “rainforest logging companies” and you will probably find a lot of companies listed (I did). The poor people of the regions work for these logging companies but are not directly responsible. They are doing a job to feed their families and I can guarantee they are getting paid poorly for the job they do. You want to know what else? None of these people were starving until their rainforest, which provided them all of the food they needed and more, started getting wiped out. The logging companies are paying them to kill themselves and these poor people are taking the jobs because they want to survive...does it make any sense to you? ‘cause it makes no sense AT ALL to me.


But if you aren't willing to take the time to learn how to intepret reliable information, don't just pretend likes its ok to spout off whatever your favorite propaganda machine thinks you should be.
Once again is this directed at me? I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I double checked my facts. If you can contradict any of the facts I stated please do so...but don’t try to disprove me by saying I’m spouting propaganda. It makes people look ridiculous when that is the only comeback they have.


Thirty years ago, the people who are now raging against global warming, were predicting an ice age, and FYI, its been getting colder again since the nineties.
Are you saying we no longer have to worry about Global Warning? What a relief! Please do show me where you got this wonderful information. Of course even if it’s true I doubt this “fact” will last if Bush keeps turning his back of the environment.


Worse yet, this causes a lot of environmental groups to spend money fear mongering and not doing anything, instead of focusing on worthy, quantifiable issues. What if every dollar spent on leaflets with misinformation went to stopping live animal sales in pet stores?
Which groups do this? Let me know so I can make sure not to donate to them.


I want environmental protection and animal welfare as much as the next person. However, I think we need to be responsible, dignified, and maintain scientific and moral integrity when working toward these goals.
Me too. I ask the exact same thing from our leaders “responsible, dignified, and maintain scientific and moral integrity” . The problem is we aren’t getting it.

sasha
01-25-05, 09:24 pm
voodoojoint, we are on the same page with most of this stuff, my reply was mostly just a general rant. I was not refering to you. I agree that Bush's environmental policy stinks. I like that you have specific sources, but you are the exception to the rule.

For environmental groups that are anti-capitalism:
Even one of the original founders, Patrick Moore, quit greenpeace because he said they were more about anti-capitalism than environmentalism.

As for large environmental groups lying to push an agenda:
Greenpeace's website actually says that genetic engineering "will not help" feed the worlds population. However, they are already in use in our food supply, and without them, two billion people would have to stop eating-according to Norman Borlaug, who won a nobel prize for saving a billion starving people by making small modifications to rice and grain crops. So that's just plain lying, and they get 800 million dollars in donations a year to do it. Not to mention, a lot of these groups have convinced leaders of poor, underfed countries that the food is unsafe, and to let their countries' children starve to death, rather than use GE crops. To me that is incredibly infuriating that they would sentence innocent children to death because of their own agendas; not to mention, none of them are volunteering to be in that group of two billion people who would have to stop eating for the world to stop using GE crops. To make matters worse, there are no fish genes in tomatoes, or firefly DNA, etc; those are laboratory tests usually used to study a specific gene for research purposes. The actual GE crops have small modifications, and are the most tested crops in the history of this country.

I am concerned about global warming, but I do feel that groups like greenpeace take too much of an apocolyptic tone when talking about it, because the numbers aren't certain, and the honest scientists admit that:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html is a good summary.

Of the 30 studies the EPA used to compile their second hand smoke report, 6 found a statistically insignificant increase of lung cancer, 18 found no effect from SHS, and 6 found that the SHS group had a smaller chance of getting cancer. So it averages out to no effect on lung cancer from second hand smoke. Personally I'd still worry about Asthma and allergies, and don't want people to smoke around me, but lets be honest about why, instead of picking and choosing our data, reducing the statistical tests we use until our results seem significant, and then releasing them and lying about them, until a judge fiinally issues a 92 page decision criticizing our lack of ethics. Its an example about how lots of people from supposedly reliable organizations are lying to push their agendas.

o0Ms Jenny0o
01-26-05, 09:25 pm
Sure looks like he hates animals... http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?i=37157d65-7222-4341-9225-21388b7a7784&m=News&mi=Peculiar%20Postings&p=hotVideo_topnews&rf

Susan9608
01-27-05, 12:40 am
I think Bush, like millions of people everywhere, loves the animals he and others keep as pets, and doesn't think twice about the other animals that he eats or wears. Some how, people feel that a dog is different from a cow ... or a beaver ... or a rat ... which makes it okay to love the dog but eat the cow, skin the beaver, and torture the rat. Crazy system.

mncavylover
01-29-05, 03:49 pm
Agreed. It is something we so take for granted in the system that we don't even stop and think about it at all. Or, rather, most people don't. Sad but completely true.

Susan9608
01-29-05, 06:34 pm
Definitely sad. I think people don't think about it because to do so would mean that they would have to do something about it, and it's so much easier to remain ignorant and do nothing.

mncavylover
01-30-05, 06:49 pm
Ah yes, the "we can't change anything so let's not do anything" crowd. Poo on them.

avengedphish
02-06-05, 07:08 pm
Does anyone here know how devastating beavers can be on the envirnment? Has anyone here ever heard of conservation? Beaver build large dams that clog up rivers and streams. These clogs create floods which can destroy valuable farm land, and cause many other problems. Would you rather they just kill the beavers and throw them in the trash can? The way I see it is at least they are being used for something. Whether George Bush or anyone else wants a beaver hat beavers are going to be killed. Isn't it better that we put them to some use than just throwing them in the trash can?

avengedphish
02-06-05, 08:05 pm
Wow that is one of the coolest cowboy hats I have ever seen. If anyone knows where I can buy one please send me a instant message at Furby Commander.
AIM- Furby Commander

DocDolittle
02-06-05, 08:11 pm
Actually, beavers naturally build dams to create valuable new rivers and streams and often times help to control flooding. And also, that last post makes me think I *sniff sniff* smell a troll!

avengedphish
02-06-05, 08:33 pm
Haha those valuable new rivers destroy valuable farm land. If new rivers and streams are being made from the dams isn't that called flooding?

Susan9608
02-09-05, 04:48 pm
Avengedphish -

Just a thought in regards to one of your posts ....

Am I correct in my interpretation of what you said? It seems to me that you were saying that since beavers cause devestating damage to the environment, it's okay to kill them.

I find that very poor logic. For one thing, it is *because* human beings have "developed" so much of the land that beavers (and other animals) have been displaced and forced to live in closer proximity to human beings. Our roads and homes and farm land were once their homes, which we usurped, so it should be our obligation to find a way to coexist with them.

Also, trapping and killing beavers is not only cruel, but also ineffective. As long as the area is accessible and attractive to beavers and other animals, more animals will move in to replace the ones that were killed. This creates a vicious cycle. There are other, humane ways to control beaver activity and populations that are currently being used in Virginia and the District of Columbia. So trapping and killing (and subsequent hat making) are not necessary.

But by your logic, it's okay to kill them because they cause destruction. It apparently doesn't matter that beavers are gentle, inquisitive, family-oriented animals who mate for life and remain friends with their children. Beavers can live to be 20 years old and are expert architects—their complex, sturdy lodges can stand for years. They constantly maintain their homes, taking obvious pride in their work, and are even known to enjoy flute music. Female beavers are especially busy as they care for their young while also looking after their rambunctious “teenagers.” But evidently, none of this matters; since they cause destruction, it's okay to kill them.

Does that apply equally to anything that causes destruction? Should an arsonist who burns down a building be executed for destroying property? Or is it just those who destroy the environment that deserve to be killed? How about the people drilling in the formerly protected land of Alaska, looking for oil? They are destroying the environment ... should we trap and kill them as well? And after trapping and killing them, should we make hats and coats and boots of their skin and fur, so they don't go to waste?

I think your argument is ridiculous ... that it's okay to kill something because it causes destruction. Human beings first destroyed the beavers' home. According to your rules, the beavers should have killed us. Wouldn't that be a sight? Beavers walking around, wearing human hats.