First off, my point, as I've explained numerous times, was not to prove that we have eradicated a species. The point is that we try to and we do it with broad political consent. If you wish to keep pounding your chest about small pox that is fine, but it just goes to show how badly you miss the point.
Originally Posted by dave1949
So what? I have never argued that conservatives often oppose environmental legislation. They do. Often with good reason, often not. But that has never been my point. My point has simply been to demonstrate that your contention that liberals are the sole force for good, decent and effective environmental measures is patently false. I have given concrete examples of conservatives making major, significant, game changing environmental and conservation contributions. That alone refutes your entire argument as you posed it in your initial post. If you wish to modify your argument, feel free to do so. If you do not then you are simply refusing to accept simple logic. No number of examples of conservatives behaving badly is going to change that (especially since that can be matched, number-for-number, by liberals behaving equally badly, right?).
Here are some more conservatives at work
So you are saying that no liberals oppose environmental legislation? You seem to live in an almost cartoon-like world of good guys and bad guys. I'm not going to do the legwork for you but you need to do a little bit of study about how modern legislation comes about. Its kind of like making sausage. It isn't pretty and it is often composed of some pretty unpalatable practices on both sides of the isle. And this is THE issue that I take exception with. You see liberals always in unstained white suits and conservative always in filthy black. Again, it is sad and oh so naive.
Who would be in the way of that regulation? A liberal? Generally not, George.
Not at all. Harmful process can either be permitted and regulated, permitted without regulation or banned. Will you claim that we should ban all harmful processes? If not then you must pick one of the two remaining options. It is just that simple.
You are making silly statements about harm and no harm, Exxon and Sierra.
I don't know but what you seem to be suggesting that those biologists and environmentalists were de facto liberals? I'm very close friends with a top notch waterfowl biologist. He's far more conservative than I am. No, really, its true........
Where would Ducks Unlimited be without the work of many biologists and environmentalists?
My basic argument with your initial statement is bullet proof. It needs no further defending.
George, you are defending the indefensible
When did I call on God to defend any statement I have made? You misread me constantly and consistently.....and I suspect intentionally.
and calling on God isn't going to change that.
When did I call on God?