Bush policy to be overturned

Cancel8

Canceled
"The Bureau of Land Management this afternoon is expected to overturn a George W. Bush administration policy barring the agency from temporarily protecting lands with wilderness qualities...

Conservation groups for years have lobbied Interior to overturn the Norton settlement -- known as the "no more wilderness" policy -- arguing that it blocked the agency from its statutory duty to protect pristine landscapes in its resource management plans.

The lawsuit with the state of Utah barred BLM from taking stock of wilderness quality lands on all of its 256 million acres, reaching far beyond the few oil and gas leases in Utah that had been at issue in the case, groups contend.

The new policy will "give back to BLM the authority to conduct wilderness inventories, identify lands with wilderness character, set them up as wildlands for interim protection until Congress has to act," said a source familiar with the new policy. "And it'll allow BLM to do these assessments in Alaska, too..."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/1...urn-bushs-no-more-wilderness-polic-14341.html
 
you should actually read up on issues from non left wing sources....

there is more to this than your link would have us believe and by extension yhou would have us believe

then again, you are the king of cut and paste from the internet
 
you should actually read up on issues from non left wing sources....

there is more to this than your link would have us believe and by extension yhou would have us believe

then again, you are the king of cut and paste from the internet

Ah yes, the communist, terrorist, red, anti american, uncivilised, pinko, traitorous New York Times.

Quite agree your Yurtship.
 
since i never said that....not sure what the heck you're talking about

care to try again

No, of course. I am putting words into your mouth. Heaven knows it is not difficult since it is open most of the time.
 
Translation: You never say anything that I want you to say, so I just make it up.

I would have expected better than that from you. Yurt has accused me of saying certain things. He is too dense to realise that I did not suggest, for one moment, that he said those things about the NYT. Good heavens one has to treat some of you people as if you are children.
Do you understand nothing of normal communication?
Perhaps, in future, instead of jumping in with both feet you should actually read what he says and why.
 
i c

so you couldn't actually show where i said what you dishonestly claimed

that was easy....as usual

Would you mind, for the sake of Damocles, tell me exactly where I dishonestly claimed anything?
I am much obliged to you.
 
Ah yes, the communist, terrorist, red, anti american, uncivilised, pinko, traitorous New York Times.

Quite agree your Yurtship.

The New York Times has become the 'newspaper of record' for the Liberal Elite. There is virtually nothing remotely conservative inside it, except the dwindling number of advertising inches. It's not some 'fair and objective' source of credible journalism, as you seem to believe. I understand, you live across the pond, and simply don't understand this, but that's the case.
 
I would have expected better than that from you. Yurt has accused me of saying certain things. He is too dense to realise that I did not suggest, for one moment, that he said those things about the NYT. Good heavens one has to treat some of you people as if you are children.
Do you understand nothing of normal communication?
Perhaps, in future, instead of jumping in with both feet you should actually read what he says and why.
When you list off a bunch of stuff then say "you agree (albeit sardonically)" even mentioning their name, it clearly indicates what you "believe" they said. Now, when reality doesn't match you get all defensive.

I'm good with that, but I do like sarcasm and using it in my "Translations"...
 
When you list off a bunch of stuff then say "you agree (albeit sardonically)" even mentioning their name, it clearly indicates what you "believe" they said. Now, when reality doesn't match you get all defensive.

I'm good with that, but I do like sarcasm and using it in my "Translations"...

Not defensive at all. I have nothing to defend. But I do expect a certain degree of understanding. How else does one relate to the world if not by extrapolation and pattern seeking. I have been called Chinese, Communist and an America hater by people who have added what they think are one and one to arrive at giraffes, and would not know the meanings of any of the terms, but still I try to keep my underwear relatively twistless. But to mis-understand a simple sentence, and not by accident, makes the debate he craves well nigh impossible.
He would probably try to make a similar point if one was to extrapolate from 'George Bush is thick' that he 'can't form a sentence', that his library consists of two books, one of which he is still colouring in.' These are not incontravertable statements of fact. Now do you understand what was meant by, 'Ah yes, the communist, terrorist, red, anti american, uncivilised, pinko, traitorous New York Times'?
Do you think that Yurt might understand? After he has taken his medication, of course. [Don't shoot, that wasn't serious!!!!]
 
The New York Times has become the 'newspaper of record' for the Liberal Elite. There is virtually nothing remotely conservative inside it, except the dwindling number of advertising inches. It's not some 'fair and objective' source of credible journalism, as you seem to believe. I understand, you live across the pond, and simply don't understand this, but that's the case.

To be honest I sometimes read the NYT. I do not like its style and it tends to annoy more than inform, but that is only my opinion. Its politics are irrelevant to me. I seem to remember it being better 50 years ago but that might be a case of childhood summers.
 
The New York Times has become the 'newspaper of record' for the Liberal Elite. There is virtually nothing remotely conservative inside it, except the dwindling number of advertising inches. It's not some 'fair and objective' source of credible journalism, as you seem to believe. I understand, you live across the pond, and simply don't understand this, but that's the case.

Does the source matter, if the facts are as stated?

Here's another report of the same event:

"The reviews will not allow Interior to designate wilderness — that can be done only through an act of Congress — but they will allow the department to suggest areas where Congress should take action.

Several environmental advocates tell POLITICO that Salazar will likely go a step further, providing a blueprint for field managers to protect “wilderness quality” land in the absence of congressional action.

That could provide consolation for environmental groups whose wilderness bills died in the Senate this week when Majority Leader Harry Reid abandoned his late-session push for a water, lands and wildlife omnibus measure.

“As we’ve seen, legislation can take a very long time,” said Nada Culver of the Wilderness Society.

Wilderness designations are popular among environmentalists because they preserve places that have experienced little or no human impact, but they are opposed by many Western conservatives because of the restrictions they place on energy development.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the likely chairman of the House public lands subcommittee next session, has said he would look unfavorably on bills that “lock up” Bureau of Land Management land as wilderness.

Norton set up the prohibition on new wilderness reviews in response to a lawsuit from the state of Utah, which sued the BLM after it identified more than 2 million acres of potential wilderness in the state.

The Bureau of Land Management oversees 264 million acres, an area more than 1.5 times the size of Texas.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46754.html#ixzz1930W23AW
 
"...The Obama administration has restored U.S. land managers' powers to curb development on vast tracts of America's back country, undoing what conservation groups called a "no more wilderness" policy put in place under President George W. Bush...

An official wilderness designation by law prohibits the building of roads or other structures, or any human activities that would alter the natural landscape, such as farming, logging, mining, or oil and gas drilling.

In years past, lands classified by BLM as eligible for such protection were to be protected as de facto wilderness until or unless Congress acted.

But Salazar's new "wild lands" policy gives BLM latitude to allow limited energy development or other activities in such areas, even if they "may impair wilderness characteristics."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BN0BJ20101224
 

Your ignorance of the language and the humour within is absolutely staggering. If you really think that that formed a lie or an incorrect quotation you should go back to primary school.
 
Your ignorance of the language and the humour within is absolutely staggering. If you really think that that formed a lie or an incorrect quotation you should go back to primary school.

nice spin....but you clearly sought to dishonestly paraphrase what i said...you clearly tried to make it look like i was really saying that about the ny times....

your inability to be understand english is a well known issue on this board, instead of lecturing others on its usage, you would be best served learning it
 
Back
Top