Is this the worst administration ever?

[Don't panic]

Is the Bush administration the worst in American history?
If not, why? Who has performed worse?

This is my take.
GWB (or whoever is in charge) stepped into the job without the majority of the popular vote and with a shaky mandate (and let’s leave it at that) which should have called for a cautious, bipartisan approach (remember the “uniter”?). Instead we have a country more bitterly divided than any time I can think of.

He ran on a small government, minimal international involvement, compassionate conservatism platform and proceeded with a 180 on every single subject.

Civil liberties have been significantly eroded all around, people are held captive with no rights and no possibilities to defend themselves, secrecy is a pervasive characteristic of this administration’s MO, constitutional amendments have been proposed that would limit civil rights.

This administration inherited a period of great prosperity and the largest fiscal surplus in history, and has basically looted it, leading the country into the largest deficit and probably the highest number of jobs lost since the great depression, compromising social security and medicare in the way. Education policies have been a failure, environment policies have been rolled back years and religious ideology has replaced science in a number of instances.

Without assessing whether or not he can be held responsible for not preventing 9-11 (likely not, but the Iraqi obsession didn’t help either), he happily proceeded in squandering the huge capital of world sympathy toward the US in the aftermath of the attack (even in places where they don’t typically like us), by launching in a blatant neo-imperialistic policy that morphed this country into the entity that the soviet propaganda was depicting during the cold war.

Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan and than seriously addressing the real middle east issues (mainly the Israeli-palestinian problem) thus pre-emptying the recruiting grounds, he validated BinLaden’s BS by becoming exactly the crusading invaders BL had been preaching against, alienating masses of muslims (and not) around the world, and turning the war on terror on a devastating propaganda debacle.

The unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country undoes the “good guys” image the US has been building since WWI, and, coupled with the endorsement of murder as a means of dealing with political and police issues (missiles in yemen, support of Sharon and so on) will undermine US credibility and support in international law forums for years.

Even assuming that the yet unstated reasons to invade Iraq are valid, we went there unprepared and without any long term or exit strategy. We are right now involved in a bloody civil war that will cost many lives and may even end up handing the country to Islamic fundamentalists. Talk about a safe heaven for terrorists.

The Bush administration tactics have precipitated the world in a climate of hate and fear, and anti-americanism has grown (even among our traditional friends), to levels never reached before. Again, insulting our allies basically for being right all along (read France) didn’t help either.

All this while lying their ass off on matters of national security (WMD anybody?).
The damage this administration has already done has been pervasive, capillary and probably long-lasting. Can we, and the world, take four more years of this?

Sorry for the long tirade. I realize that I might not 100% objective here and I am coming in with a slightly liberal bias, but I meditated a lot about this and I cannot come up with anything that has improved during GWB administration, other than GWB’s friends bottom lines. Not one thing. Does anybody? Am I blind? Please enlighten me.

I would imagine that some of the many conservative macrumors denizens hold diverging views. So I would like to know, whatever you think of Kerry, why would you give your vote to this people again? It’s beyond me that half of the people in the country still supports Bush. I just don’t get it. Why?

[skunk]

The whole world is asking precisely that question.

[zimv20]

harding was pretty bad, too.

anyone want one of these t-shirts? they're silk-screened. $12 + shipping

[numediaman]

Bush joins a long line of one term bad presidents.

The worst string of them were before the Civil War:
James Polk (1845-49); followed by Zachery Taylor (1849-1850 -- died in office); followed by Milliard Fillmore (1850-1853); followed by Franklin Pierce (1853-1857); followed by James Buchanan (1857-1861).

These one-termers were followed by Abraham Lincoln -- who looks a lot like John Kerry. Strange.

[mactastic]

These one-termers were followed by Abraham Lincoln -- who looks a lot like John Kerry. Strange.

Oh heresy! Are you suggesting Honest Abe looked French? :D

[Krizoitz]

While I am not jumping head over heels for Kerry, I do think he will make a decent prez as compared to the worse-ever one we have in office now. I think you're analysis is spot on.

I suppose being a moderate I'll never get a candidate I can really be behind.

[pooky]

harding was pretty bad, too.

anyone want one of these t-shirts? they're silk-screened. $12 + shipping

Do they have a picture of GW on them, or is it just the text?

And who's the girl?!

[IJ Reilly]

Do they have a picture of GW on them, or is it just the text?

And who's the girl?!

Yeah, does she come with? :)

[zimv20]

Do they have a picture of GW on them, or is it just the text?

And who's the girl?!
just the text. the girl is a friend of mine. (ex-, actually)

and IJR -- no, she does not come with :-)

[Don't panic]

Bush joins a long line of one term bad presidents.

The worst string of them were before the Civil War:
James Polk (1845-49); followed by Zachery Taylor (1849-1850 -- died in office); followed by Milliard Fillmore (1850-1853); followed by Franklin Pierce (1853-1857); followed by James Buchanan (1857-1861).

These one-termers were followed by Abraham Lincoln -- who looks a lot like John Kerry. Strange.

I don't know about the Kerry-Lincoln similarities, but I would agree on the preceding presidents being bad, especially Pierce and Buchanan (less so Taylor and Fillmore), as they paved the road for the civil war, but Polk was of a different mold, and, if not great, probably has been a good president.
The major fault of all of them, from Polk to Buchanan, was failing to recognize/address/solve the slavery issue. But I guess that then the question was less clearcut than it looks now.

the problem whit the current president is that he is actively screwing up the nation on a EVERY possible issue I can think of.

Even the arguably most reviled president so far, Harding, had an half decent foreign policy, and his bad press is mostly due to the corruption of his cronies, not of the man himself.
BTW, Dubbya has that corner covered too (Enron, Hulliburton and so on).

[Frohickey]

The best US President is the one that gets inaugurated in Washington DC, goes back home to his/her home state, and manages to never set foot in Washington, DC again, up until his next inauguration. :D :D :D

[Don't panic]

The best US President is the one that gets inaugurated in Washington DC, goes back home to his/her home state, and manages to never set foot in Washington, DC again, up until his next inauguration. :D :D :D

So you're basically suggesting that the Union be dissolved in favor of fully independent States. Interesting concept.

[Frohickey]

So you're basically suggesting that the Union be dissolved in favor of fully independent States. Interesting concept.

Lets see... low budgets, law enforcement can pretty much run on auto-pilot, its mostly done by the states anyway, new laws would have to be via a veto-proof majority. Whats not to like?

People's tax burden would be pretty stable. Business climate would be stable.

Maybe I would add the same thing to Congresscritters and Senators.

You know, if we gave $1 billion a year to each Congresscritter and Senator for them to stay at home and never convene a quorum, you know how much taxes that would save every year? :D

If we did that, everyone except millionaires would not have to pay taxes. Each of the 435 billionaires would pay, of course. :eek: :D

[pseudobrit]

Lets see... low budgets, law enforcement can pretty much run on auto-pilot, its mostly done by the states anyway, new laws would have to be via a veto-proof majority. Whats not to like?

Wow. Sounds like a... Confederation. If you write up some basic outline of what such a loose collection of states would be, why, you'd have some articles.

We could then call them the Articles of Confederation!

Genuis! Why hasn't this been thought of before!?

[3rdpath]

this is certainly the worst administration in my lifetime.

what's going on now makes nixon look like a dimestore hoodlum.

[IJ Reilly]

what's going on now makes nixon look like a dimestore hoodlum.

...and Reagan like an intellectual, and Clinton like a saint.

[wwworry]

didn't Polk take us into war with Mexico based on "misleading" information?

It is quite remarkable how similar the situation is. Polk claimed Mexico attacked us. Untrue.

------------
link (http://www.mahablog.com/id6.html)

Lincoln opposed the war not because he was "pro Mexican" but because he believed the war was wrong for America. The President's stated reasons for the war were, Lincoln said, a pack of lies, and the war itself a violation of American principles and the Constitution itself.

Lincoln began by tackling the issue of criticizing an war already in progress:

When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so.

What compelled Lincoln to speak, he said, was President Polk's mis-statement of of the support the war received in the House. According to Lincoln, Polk had taken a vote in the House for war supplies to be an endorsement of the war itself.

... when that declaration stood disconnected from the question of supplies, sixty-seven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it--beside this open attempt to prove, by telling the truth, what he could not prove by telling the whole truth--demanding of all who will not submit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out ...

So, Lincoln said, the support for the war in Congress was not as strong as Polk made it out to be, and Lincoln would not stand idly by and be misrepresented.

I don't want to go into details about the issues of the Mexican War ... well, no, in fact I do, but I recognize that most readers are not history geeks, as I am, so I'll refrain. The point is that President Polk had not made a case for the Mexican War that satisfied Congressman Lincoln:

I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client's neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it appear so; but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it still does appear to me, that just such, and from just such necessity, is the President's struggle in this case.

Indeed, Lincoln suspected Polk's motives:

That originally having some strong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning--to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.

Finally, please take these words of Lincoln and visualize Bush instead of Polk:

All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond it's power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease.

[skunk]

As GWPolk might say:"The trouble with the French is they have no phrase for "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"......

[uvex]

no the worst was the one previous to the current administration. The one where someone got impeached

[skunk]

no the worst was the one previous to the current administration. The one where someone got impeached

Is this a serious contribution? You are equating an illegal war costing the deaths of thousands to a blow-job?

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a serious contribution? You are equating an illegal war costing the deaths of thousands to a blow-job?

It was the blow-job heard 'round the world. Many people died and more suffered on account of it, and it gave aid and comfort to our enemies.

[skunk]

Wow! I didn't think it was THAT good!

[zimv20]

It was the blow-job heard 'round the world. Many people died and more suffered on account of it, and it gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
"oh, the humanity!"

[Awimoway]

The worst string of them were before the Civil War:
James Polk (1845-49); followed by Zachery Taylor (1849-1850 -- died in office); followed by Milliard Fillmore (1850-1853); followed by Franklin Pierce (1853-1857); followed by James Buchanan (1857-1861).

You beat me to it. Actually I was just going to single out Polk and Buchanan, but these were all losers.

Also, Ulysses S. Grant was a pretty lousy president. Too easily swayed by crooks into sanctioning their schemes.

I don't like GW, but he's not the worst we've ever had. He might be the worst in our lifetime, though.

History and voters tend to soft-pedal presidents who are in office when the country is under attack because any action is seen as "responsive" and "decisive" and crap like that. The merits of those responses and decisions will of course be debated by those of different ideologies, so there won't be much consensus for a while. But I think eventually it will be plain to all that the Bush Doctrine—"if you're not with us, you're against us"—is woefully inflammatory and unwise, not to mention it opens up many opportunities for hypocrisy (ever heard of North Korea?).

[pooky]

no the worst was the one previous to the current administration. The one where someone got impeached

To be fair, Clinton wasn't the only president to be impeached, but he WAS the only one to be impeached for such an inane reason. You could have at least picked one of the justified impeachments to make your case. Of course, the most recent of those was a republican, so maybe that's not a case you'd like to make.

[IJ Reilly]

If you're referring to Nixon, he was never actually impeached, though IIRC impeachment articles were in the process of being drawn up before he resigned. I think it's pretty certain that if Nixon had been subjected to impeachment hearings, he would have become the first and only President to removed from office.

[wwworry]

just go to a nice restaurant and say

"massive deficits, misled coutnry into war, illegally outed CIA agent, fake turkey"

or

"blowjob"

and see which statement turns heads (so to speak)

[Sun Baked]

Wow! I didn't think it was THAT good!Must have been, Clinton talked a generation into thinking it was so good that 12 years olds should be doing it -- and are -- and it's not even sex, technically. ;)

And I realized -- once again -- that I really shouldn't be talking about that act until I change my tar back to blah. :eek:

[blackfox]

clinton was not impeached...neither was Nixon (technically), as pointed out...while I may not say GWB is the worst President ever, in these modern times, he is certainly the most dangerous...the world is alot more complicated, interconnected and bristling with high-tech weaponry than in Polks day for example, and mistakes can not be as afforded by America as our once-isolation afforded us...on a related note, although I hold a certain respect for him and his ideals, I would vote Woodrow Wilson as one of our worst presidents...Treaty of Versaiiles set in motion many of the conflicts we have had to endure to this day (WWII Germany, Yugoslavia/balkans, Greece, Middle East)...not that the other colonial powers don't deserve blame...but he was an idealistic and stubborn man, which can be a dangerous combination...

[zimv20]

clinton was not impeached
actually, he was. but he wasn't removed from office.

[IJ Reilly]

Woodrow Wilson fought against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles dictated by France to punish Germany, and worked to found the League of Nations. If Wilson's direction had been followed, World War II might have been avoided.

[Neserk]

actually, he was. but he wasn't removed from office.


No, he was impeached but not convicted. Impeached is like (or is) being indicted. But he wasn't found guilty.

[blackfox]

Woodrow Wilson fought against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles dictated by France to punish Germany, and worked to found the League of Nations. If Wilson's direction had been followed, World War II might have been avoided.
As I noted, responsibility falls in the hands of many, but in reference to the League of Nations, Wilsons' unwillingless to be bipartisan and flexible prevented the adoption of such by the United States (Congress) and doomed its' implementation. It was (as is often the case) the rather arbitrary delineation and creation of modern 'states', without regard for historical or cultural context by those @ Versailles that created the underpinnings for conflict in these times...although I admit I am not a scholar on these subjects, it is open to interpretation...and I stand corrected on Clintons' impeachment...thanks for the clarification...

[Frohickey]

Woodrow Wilson fought against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles dictated by France to punish Germany, and worked to found the League of Nations. If Wilson's direction had been followed, World War II might have been avoided.

Agreed.

But you can't fault the French for wanting their pound of flesh from Germany. WWI was the scene (http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/aisne2.htm) where France lost a lot of its young and brave men. The problem was the French military command.

Actually, if you look at it from the viewpoint of France loss of its brave men in WWI, its not surprising that France is the way it it now. The scaredy Frenchman are the ones that had offspring with the Frenchwomen. :eek: :p

[pseudobrit]

Actually, if you look at it from the viewpoint of France loss of its brave men in WWI, its not surprising that France is the way it it now. The scaredy Frenchman are the ones that had offspring with the Frenchwomen. :eek: :p

It must be great when everything fits into a fantastic little racist ideology.

[numediaman]

It must be great when everything fits into a fantastic little racist ideology.

This is the second time I've had to post on MacRumors in defence of the French: any country that can produce Burgundy, the bagette, and Juliette Binoche is OK in my book. Viva la France!

[Awimoway]

any country that can produce … Juliette Binoche is OK in my book. Viva la France!

And let's not forget the heart-stopping Catherine Deneuve. Va va va voom. :cool:

[Frohickey]

It must be great when everything fits into a fantastic little racist ideology.

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :eek:

[pseudobrit]

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :eek:

Keep going.

Got any other ethnic groups you like to hurl generalisations, epithets and hate at?

[IJ Reilly]

But you can't fault the French for wanting their pound of flesh from Germany.

Sure you can. Most historians do, and so did many at the time.

[Frohickey]

Keep going.

Got any other ethnic groups you like to hurl generalisations, epithets and hate at?

No... John F Kerry's ancestors are enough. :p :D :p

[Sun Baked]

No... John F Kerry's ancestors are enough. :p :D :pI though this picture was funny. :p

Interesting bedfellows...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp290204bedfellowsmedium.jpg

[pseudobrit]

No... John F Kerry's ancestors are enough. :p :D :p

So you'll be spewing your hate at Jews next? You just keep getting better.

[numediaman]

I though this picture was funny. :p

Interesting bedfellows...


Here is what the rest of your fav web site says:


LaVey/Kerry Photo Is A Hoax!

Click here to find out why.

However, we have the real and verified evidence of Kerry's links to occult organizations.

Kerry is a member of the Brotherhood of Death, Skull and Bones, along with George W. Bush.


Nice stuff.

[Thomas Veil]

To think that people once thought of Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history. :D He's looking pretty good right now compared to Dubya.

I think your argument is spot-on, Don't panic. It's amazing to me that anybody (except for the far right) wants to vote for this guy at all.

Until now, I always thought Ronald Reagan was the worst president, primarily because of Reaganomics (or as his own VP called it, "voodoo economics"). Reagan did more to harm this country financially than almost any president before him. He "legitimized" such concepts as greenmail, enormous federal budget and trade deficits, the ongoing decimation of the middle class, union-busting, mega-mergers and other things which have turned this country into a corpocracy...and we've been living with the results ever since.

Essentially, Reagan made it politically okay to be a greedy ass.

But I do think Dubya's going to outdo him. Dubya not only practices Reaganomics, but he subverts civil liberties and creates ill will between the US and the rest of the world. That's gonna be hard to top.

[miloblithe]

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :eek:

While that is a Simpsons quotation, and is therefore funny, I think you should look at how many wars the French have faught in the last 100 years. This is a wild guess, but I bet they'd be in 3rd or 4th on a list of most foreign wars faught.

[skunk]

I think you should look at how many wars the French have faught in the last 100 years

And they aren't the only nation to have been defeated in VietNam....

[jefhatfield]

in recent times reagan was worse...as a self proclamed conservative, he certainly spent a lot of money ;) and for what, a cold war which, in real terms anyway, we already won? nixon already broke the back of the commies when he made a pact with china

in history, gwb won't be anyone's favorite :), but grant, ike, or harding will most likely rank very low on the administration meter

like it or not, i think history will be very favorable to clinton, whether he had sex with that woman or not ;) ...hey, jfk has a great legacy and i am sure he had more than one woman

[miloblithe]

And they aren't the only nation to have been defeated in VietNam....

zigactly.

As for the question in this thread, I have to say it's hard having proper perspective on this. As someone who is 30 now, I would say I became politically aware under Reagan, but not to a particularly large degree.

The Bush administration seems really bad now and would certainly be a candidate for my vote for worst ever, but who knows what long-term effects his administration will have. Personally, I think it will be traced to the beginning of America's decline, but obviously that's highly speculative.

In terms of domestic policies, I disagree with his social perspective, but how much long-term damage he has done remains in doubt. Economically, his record is poor. Certainly, a downswing was coming, but it probably could have been milder. Could have been worse too.

[IJ Reilly]

like it or not, i think history will be very favorable to clinton

Probably, though it will gall the right wing to no end, history will likely remember Clinton, at the very worst, as a competent chief executive who did one really stupid thing. The rest (Whitewater, the "travel office scandal", "filegate" etc.) were pure political theater and eminently forgettable in historical terms. Even the impeachment hearings themselves I predict will be relegated to a historical footnote, of more interest to historians of politics and the Constitution then as an event of any real consequence. Even now it's hard to remember exactly why Clinton was hauled up on impeachment charges. Mainly what I recall at this point is a year of obnoxious blovating by politicos trying to score points.

[jefhatfield]

i think the gop will not care 50 years from now if the historians like clinton

i think a lot of democrats, me included, have stopped hating richard nixon

history has already called nixon a brilliant foreign policy president and even clinton asked advice from the senior statesman when he was in office trying to pull isreal and palestine together in the 90s

some presidents have issues with women, honesty, personality, management styles and the like, but in the end, the president's record speaks the loudest

clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion in us history

nixon got us out of vietnam and chipped away at the communist block more effectively than any us president

gwb does not seem to be a bad man in any way, and i think he got religion/faith/higher power in his life and stopped drugs and booze, but he is just a perfect example of a lame duck president who is indecisive and weak...his father was criticized for being a wimp but i think george sr. was a lot better and more decisive than junior...sometimes i think junior is just a very lucky, dumb, rich kid who was in the right place at the right time...he's our modern day forrest gump ;)

[IJ Reilly]

he's our modern day forrest gump ;)

Ouch. And here I thought you might be building up to a defense of "our George." Personally, I think of him as "the not ready for prime-time president."

[MongoTheGeek]

like it or not, i think history will be very favorable to clinton, whether he had sex with that woman or not ;) ...hey, jfk has a great legacy and i am sure he had more than one woman

Clinton was not hated for getting a little on the side. He was not impeached for getting a little on the side. He was impeached for the *EXACT SAME THING* as Nixon. Obstruction, and in Clintons case it was Perjury. Had he just said in the Paula Jones case "heh heh yeah I did an intern or two that would have been it. Everyone would have poo-pooed him but that would have been it. He wouldn't have bombed innocent countries who were trying to help us catch Osama, and he wouldn't have pooched what was left of yugoslavia.

As for Bush inheriting a country in great shape things were on the decline since at least late 1999. It was rotten wood with fresh paint. A slight push and it crumbles. Enron was cooking the books since 96, same thing for Tyco, and Worldcom. The only thing Bush did was be around when it collapsed.

I won't say Bush has done an perfect job. The steel tariffs were a colossal mistake.

Carter was a crappy president. He grabbed his ankles for just about everyone. What kind of statement is it to boycott a game of world unity and peace?

[jefhatfield]

Ouch. And here I thought you might be building up to a defense of "our George." Personally, I think of him as "the not ready for prime-time president."


we have a couple of friends who have their children working for W...they pretty much think he's a swell guy and i don't doubt them

but as a president, he sucks and his all time low numbers are an indication of that...but who knows, maybe those are not the real poll numbers and their is a vast left wing conspiracy to make gwb look unpopular in america ;)

i think the worst human being in recent times in office was nixon, but i would take him over reagan or both "bush" men in the oval office

sometimes it takes a mean, paranoid, political infighter like nixon to get anything done in washington and abroad...i didn't vote for the dour bob dole, but i bet he would be a much better president right now if he were in the white house...staff and pols alike would tell endless stories to the press of what a jerk he is, but i bet our economy and our foreign policy issues would be in better shape

so though i am a democrat, i do know of other republicans i would much rather have than our current president

[numediaman]

Clinton was not hated for getting a little on the side. He was not impeached for getting a little on the side. He was impeached for the *EXACT SAME THING* as Nixon. Obstruction, and in Clintons case it was Perjury. Had he just said in the Paula Jones case "heh heh yeah I did an intern or two that would have been it. Everyone would have poo-pooed him but that would have been it. He wouldn't have bombed innocent countries who were trying to help us catch Osama, and he wouldn't have pooched what was left of yugoslavia.


You are way off base concerning your comparison between Clinton and Nixon. You may claim that Clinton lied concerning Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. But are you saying that lying to cover up a sexual tryst is the same as Watergate, the secret bombings, wiretaps and burglaries, the break in of the office of the psychologist of Daniel Ellsberg, etc. Who went to jail in the Clinton administration? What about the Nixon administration? Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Liddy and Hunt, not to mention the "Plumbers".

People are not against the presidency of Bush because of steel tariffs -- they are against Bush because of war, the economy, and the environment.

[MongoTheGeek]

sometimes it takes a mean, paranoid, political infighter like nixon to get anything done in washington and abroad...i didn't vote for the dour bob dole, but i bet he would be a much better president right now if he were in the white house...staff and pols alike would tell endless stories to the press of what a jerk he is, but i bet our economy and our foreign policy issues would be in better shape

Bob Dole isn't that dour. He just seems it. Think of the pepsi commercial with him sitting there watching Britney Speers dance around holding a erect pen saying "Down Boy" I saw that right after his viagra commercial and nearly ruined a pair of pants laughing.

Look at his episode of SNL. Dole would have been a pretty good president. His wife might not have been that bad either. Bob Dole is a bit old to be president. (He is as old as Reagan) and there was talk that had he been elected in '96 he would have, like Polk, not run for reelection.

[Frohickey]

People are not against the presidency of Bush because of steel tariffs -- they are against Bush because of war, the economy, and the environment.

I don't see anything wrong with the environment.

The arsenic rollback isn't really a rollback. The reduced levels were never instituted, and do we really have a lot of people dying from arsenic levels? I mean, they have to drink water today, and they are not dying from the existing arsenic levels.

The cleaning-up of forests to reduce the fuel load, sounds like a good idea to me. The companies reduce the fuel load, in exchange, they get some logging done as well. Better than having lots of overtime pay for firefighters, with some of them dying because of delayed waterdrops, or very, very charred forests. Thats gotta cause a lot of dead species, as well as erosion of topsoil.

I think the environmentalists need to change their focus. We are, hopefully, going to Mars in the future. They better start campaigning against terraforming of Mars. :D

Actually, for the continued existence of the human race, we really really need to start to get off the planet Earth. Cuz one comet coming along towards the Earth, and thats all she wrote.

[mactastic]

I don't see anything wrong with the environment.

The arsenic rollback isn't really a rollback. The reduced levels were never instituted, and do we really have a lot of people dying from arsenic levels? I mean, they have to drink water today, and they are not dying from the existing arsenic levels.


Hehe, lets hear you apply that logic to tax cuts. So, is a tax cut that is never enacted but is later rescinded a tax hike? :eek:

[WindPhantom]

LMAO !!!!!!! :D Wow! I am amazed! I am stunned! I am humbled to be in the company of so many armchair warriors that are so good at governing policy and getting this country on it's feet! Why I'll bet if the forefathers of some folks in here were former presidents this nation would be much better off now than what it is. In fact, there are a couple in here that I'd be willing to bet could solve all the probems this nation faces every single day. Now me, I'm just a dumb bumkin from down home and don't know starch about politics and such matters so I can't say much about the Who, What, Why's and Where's. Nope, I'm just a dummy that looks at the good each man who held office did..... or at least I try too. Now Lincoln, for example..... look at how awful he was. Went and put our country into civil war. Civil war! OMG! And just because he up and disagreed with some folks south of the Mason/Dixon line about something as unimportant as the enslavement of other human beings! How dare he!!! And let's look at FDR! Look at all the money he blew on government programs to get people working again! How dare he put this nation in such finanial straits and lead us into such debt!? Thank God for WWII to get the wheels of the economy rolling again...... whew-wee! That was a close one! And good ole Bush .... sending troops into harms way just to try and put an end to some little old group of good ole camel-jockeys that just talk about the "good old days" and the destruction of America. Yup, what was that man thinking? Silly boy! And the fact that there are no more men in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden...we call him "Binny" for short leave me wondering where the heck those pesky 17,000 troops got too! And what about the 11,000 troops that were supposed to be in Boznia to keep things quiet there? That danged Bush needs to spend more time on the ranch so he doesn't keep misplacing troops like that! Boy-o-boy..... what a silly guy. And lastly, what in the world did we go to Iraq for !!!???!!! If I wanted sand I could just run down to the local hardware store and get me a bag or two. Why those little ole training camps scattered all over the place were no clear threat to the US of A! Even though at least two of the men involved in the planning of the WTC incident spent time there.( I'm not a countin the fellas that trained there fer the first attempt or the fella caught at the Canadian border with the bomb stuff. Oh...and don't run your mouth about it ...look it up if you have the clearance. ) Naw.... if there are no WMD there then by golly we should have stayed home and whittled on a block of pine to keep us out of trouble. Yup, guess I'll just tell my buddies they came come home now too. You all know how Marines like being told they can't win a fight. And not to mention how all the SF like being told that their jobs are for stupid, war mongers. Yup, that there G.W. Bush is one screw up if ya ask me ..... ummm, ummm, ummmm. I reckon I could pluck out about every president that ever sat in the "Big Chair" and tell ya'll a thing or two about each of them. But then again, you guys are WAY up that thar ladder of learnin from me. Yous probly know a ton more stuff than me about all this fancy office stuff. And I'm sure as rain that yur all a heap more smarter than me when it comes to stuff like these here poli-tics. So if ya would, just write and let me know when any of ya'll run for office so's I will know how ta vote and who ta vote fer. Cause I gotta tell ya, I wouldn't want to make the mistake of votin fer the wrong guy! No sur ree! Don't you fergit now..... git out there and get yerself a office or two, pocket all that thar free money and get flithy corrupt like ALL the rest of them there politicians! Heck, you all know how they just want the money and all ! Everybody knows that! And those military boys I was talking about ..... well YOU all know why they do waht they do...right? Well shur ya do...... it's just to go to collage fer free, ta drink under age, and ta get laid. Even an idiot knows they wouldn't put their lives on the line to try and change the lives of the savagely oppressed or to protect a bunch of whining cry-babies from harm or to fight to allow those people that show such a distain for these same troops to speak poorly of the nation, the people, and the LEADERS they fight to protect. Yup, I'm just a poor ole dumbass from nowhere in particular that has spent a lifetime fighting for this nations freedoms. Including the freedoms that allow the banter I read here. And for the second time in my life, I wonder why I bothered. If you think you can do a beter job, do it..... don't talk about how smart you think you are. People talk about things with no clear knowledge of what's actually going on and think they could call the shots better than those people in office that just happen to have a staff of the most knowledgeable people on earth! The current president uses the knowledge of every single living former president of this nation, with the exception of one. ( If your too stupid to know which one and why don't bother asking.) The administration calls upon many, many former cabinet officials to gleen workable intel and expertise. I am NOT aiming my comments at any one person here. And you are intitled to your opinion. But when I say, " Your full of shat! " ...... and you THINK it's aimed at you........ it probably is. :cool: Now, if-in yous will fergivs me, I gotta go hitch up the mule ta take my momma ta town fer ta git some vittles fer supper fer my paw gits home and tosses a hissy fit bout not having his grub ready when he gots here fer ta sit down at da table. You-un's have a nice day now. :D

[pseudobrit]

LMAO !!!!!!! :D Wow! I am amazed! I am stunned! I am humbled to be in the company of so many armchair warriors that are so good at governing policy and getting this country on it's feet!

Somthing told me to, and I should have stopped reading right there.

Troll.

[WindPhantom]

Somthing told me to, and I should have stopped reading right there.

Troll.

Why do they call you Troll?

[zimv20]

<couldn't get through it>
whitespace, please

[skunk]

LMAO !!!!!!! :D Wow! I am amazed! I am stunned!
That may be, but what is your point?

[WindPhantom]

Somthing told me to, and I should have stopped reading right there.

Troll.

Duhhhhh.....maybe it me you calling troll? Huh? Me wanted to send you a private message but you no have it set up so me can. Why? You not know how? But you make like you so so smart an all. Maybe me not know you not know how to fix it. Duhhhhh..... me must be dummy troll. By way...it is rule not to say nasty things about other people here....right? Me think so. You think so? You want call me at my home and we talk? You meany. You big meany. You hurt me feelings. You make WindPhantom cry now. :(

[skunk]

If your too stupid to know which one
Nice...
But when I say, " Your full of shat! " ...... and you THINK it's aimed at you........ it probably is.
And again...

[Awimoway]

Somebody just made my ignore list…

[3rdpath]

...Yup, I'm just a poor ole dumbass....

i have to agree with you.

[Frohickey]

LMAO !!!!!!! :D Wow! I am amazed! I am stunned! I am humbled to be in the company of so many armchair warriors that are so good at governing policy and getting this country on it's feet!

This armchair warrior thinks that paragraphs are your friend. :eek:

[zimv20]

This armchair warrior thinks that paragraphs are your friend. :eek:
okay, that made me lol

[amnesiac1984]

I think whats really sad about this guys post , and yet to point out, is exactly how fundamentally wrong he is. A democracy thrives on whingers, we need to be sitting here bitchin about stuff so that more people find out about and do more bitchin.

I respect the job the services does, as long they try to carry out orders correctly and effectively then they get my full respect. That does not mean that I can't bring all bloody hello down on the guy who issues these orders.

Its not as simple a who are best qualified to run things, every clever guy in the office has a different opinion on everything, (and unkown motives). you should be doubting your government and questioning its motives at every turn, that is the behaviour of a true patriot. A country consists of its people, its government is a tool that they use (or its supposed to be, in a democracy), it is not the same thing as the country. Love your country not your government. I think some Americans might need to get that drummed into them. Generally the guys who post here know this, I think, no matter what side they're on.

[skunk]

What he said.

[Neserk]

To think that people once thought of Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history. :D He's looking pretty good right now compared to Dubya.



One big difference is J.Carter went on to do great things for humanity. G.Bush is likely to continue to do absolutely nothing.

[numediaman]

What he said.

Did you check out his web site? :eek:

[wwworry]

if you like mercury in your water you like George Bush

[frankzeg]

I can only hope that there ARE some folks who have a truly rational explanation for their support of the present administration. However phantom's post only serves to reinforce my belief that the support relies on some pervasive, strongly held-to but fundamentally flawed precepts. I would still like to hear a coherent response to the original post.
z

[Neserk]

I can only hope that there ARE some folks who have a truly rational explanation for their support of the present administration.


I've yet to see one. The best one so far is party loyalty.

I would still like to hear a coherent response to the original post.


me too

[IJ Reilly]

Lacking any better theory, at this point I'd have to go with some sort of mind control.

[Awimoway]

I can only hope that there ARE some folks who have a truly rational explanation for their support of the present administration.

I live in a conservative family and community and attend a pretty damn conservative church, so I hear my share of it…

I can't say that their explanation is rational necessarily, but it at least in terms of foreign policy they typically defend Bush on the grounds that, essentially, "at least he does something." All they care about is decisive action, regardless of whether that action is prudent or not (some of the brighter thinkers recognize that the merits of the action do matter; but they feel like Bush's hands were tied with respect to Iraq—he was damned if he invaded and damned if he didn't, so he might as well have gone ahead and done it). Kerry or any other Democratic president would, in their view, do nothing to defend the country against terrorism. They see him in the same light as the UN, Hans Blix, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, etc.—wimps who hide behind diplomatic procedure, ever procrastinating any decisive action.

I'm not defending it, and I don't think it's rational—for example, they never remember that Democrats overwhelmingly supported the legitimate military action in Afghanistan, and many think it didn't go far enough to capture Al Qaeda leaders and stablize Afghanistan by rebuilding it more fully than Bush has done—but that's my impression.

[Sun Baked]

I've yet to see one. The best one so far is party loyalty.I support what Bush is doing with his lackluster education.

He's proof that any semi-educated redneck can eventually become President.

But now that we've had one in office, let's vote a more literate public servant next time.

So yes, I support Bush -- and am quite interested to see what history will say about the changes he's made. :cool:

[3rdpath]

Did you check out his web site? :eek:

holy cow...the son-in-law stuff is worth a visit.

[numediaman]

I'm glad the President is so relaxed:

Bush catches bass with crew from TV show
By Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press, April 10, 2004

... Martin [host of the Outdoor Life Network program, "Fishing with Roland Martin"], the president and a Secret Service agent trolled for bass Friday afternoon. They rode in Martin's 21-foot boat, powered by a 250-horsepower engine, but in the small ranch pond, they used the boat's outboard trolling engine, Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"The president was very relaxed," Martin said.

The unexpected Friday footage came as the crew was filming at the pond and Bush "came motoring down" in his pickup to chat, Martin said. They discussed the next day's scheduled shoot.

At about 5:30 p.m., Bush looked at his watch and said he had time to "make a couple casts, so we jumped into the boat real quick."

Iraq didn't come up.


Then there is this from Talking Points Memo :
The fighting two nights ago was loud and widespread throughout the northern and northwestern parts of Baghdad ... areas such as Yarmouk, Sadr City had almost continuous gunfights and rocket attacks. When we heard US forces using the main gun on M-1 tanks at 1 AM we knew it was serious insurgency at hand.

The night is no longer the refuge and domain of the Americans. I have to tell you although the wide open areas of Iraq give a false sense of security. Even though much of this is unseen to most people the situation has gone from bad to really bad to unbelievably bad!

Westerners are getting hit everywhere. Security companies escorting CPA, themselves and other Westerners are now on the menu for all the armed resistance groups. There was a report of a massive ambush by one security firm that tried to drive in from Amman. Reports have 25-40 gunmen opening up on them. They lost all of their vehicles and had to be given a mercy lift by a passing Iraqi minivan. Several other firms lost western security personnel killed this week in drive-by ambushes and even a seige by the Sadr Militia. Several NGOs, security firms and military bases were literally under siege for days in Kut, Nasiriyah and Baghdad. The boldness and sophistication of the attacks is staggering and it is clear that every one of the resistance fighters and Islamic militiamen have taken heart at the ease of inflicting damage on the Westerners. The abductions of the Japanese hostages is a sign that we have entered a new phase of bad as abduction requires a permissive environment for the hostage taker.

[3rdpath]

I'm glad the President is so relaxed:

you have to remember this isn't the first war that he's fought from the safety of texas...

[Frohickey]

if you like mercury in your water you like George Bush

Adding mercury in water is not cost-effective. Why would a company want to add mercury in water? Taste? :p

Mercury, is normally locked up in other compounds when it is in the ground. The way it it put into the air, and gets into the water is via the burning of various ores, like iron ore, etc. Another way is when coal is burned for power generation.

So, which group, more than any other is against the use of nuclear power generation? Industry has to resort to existing coal power generation plants, and natural gas.

So which group, more than any other is against the creation of any more dams because of the claimed destruction of the river valley ecosystem when its flooded?

I see a group that does not have any solutions, other than conservation.

[Frohickey]

I can only hope that there ARE some folks who have a truly rational explanation for their support of the present administration. However phantom's post only serves to reinforce my belief that the support relies on some pervasive, strongly held-to but fundamentally flawed precepts. I would still like to hear a coherent response to the original post.
z

Never trust a poster with a broken carriage return key. :eek: :D

[wwidgirl]

I still wonder how Reagan was ever elected, TWICE no less. His stupidity was so well publicized yet the public didn't seem to care. Is this a reflection of the stupidity of the American public? He was less intelligent than Bush (especially if you consider his education- or lack thereof) and his economic policies were arguably just as harmful (hasn't Bush basically adopted "Reagonomics"?).... however he didn't take the country to war so I suppose that is definitely a positive....

I suppose Reagan bad; Bush worse.

[wwworry]

Now your just way off base here, Frohicky. THere was a plan in place to reduce the ammount of mercury being spewed out by old coal fired power plants. It was called new source review and it required power plants that were making upgrades to add polution control equipement. It is estimated that 8% of American women have mercury levels that are too high. Mercury has terrible effects on young children.

When Bush came in office a memo was sent out to power companies asking them to (rough quote) "imagine you were El Duce, what energy regulations would you like to see modified". New-source review got the ax. Power companies can continue to spew out toxic mercury.

Mercury is not something you can trade polution credits for. Unlike sulfer-dioxide which is light and disperses easily, mercury is heavy and will contaminate the land and the water in which it is released.
(lowering property values by the way ;) why should old coal fired plants be able to pollute my private property?) It needs to be reduced.

WASHINGTON, April 5 — While working with Environmental Protection Agency officials to write regulations for coal-fired power plants over several recent months, White House staff members played down the toxic effects of mercury, hundreds of pages of documents and e-mail messages show.

The staff members deleted or modified information on mercury that employees of the environmental agency say was drawn largely from a 2000 report by the National Academy of Sciences that Congress had commissioned to settle the scientific debate about the risks of mercury.

So no those dreaded envioronmentalists do have a plan and it was to add scubbers to coal fired plants when the plant was making upgrades. The energy companies did not have to do it right away either. This has nothing to do with nuclear energy or hydro-electric. The major source of new mercury in our water is from coal fired power plants. We can do something about this and we should do something about it.

You can't flim-flam the presidents record on this, Frohicky. It's terrible.

Adding mercury in water is not cost-effective. Why would a company want to add mercury in water? Taste? :p

Mercury, is normally locked up in other compounds when it is in the ground. The way it it put into the air, and gets into the water is via the burning of various ores, like iron ore, etc. Another way is when coal is burned for power generation.

So, which group, more than any other is against the use of nuclear power generation? Industry has to resort to existing coal power generation plants, and natural gas.

So which group, more than any other is against the creation of any more dams because of the claimed destruction of the river valley ecosystem when its flooded?

I see a group that does not have any solutions, other than conservation.

[Neserk]

I still wonder how Reagan was ever elected, TWICE no less. His stupidity was so well publicized yet the public didn't seem to care. Is this a reflection of the stupidity of the American public?

More so humans. He was a tall white male! Did you know that since the advent of television the tallest man has been elected all except for once? (that was a the stat in 1990, anyhow).

[numediaman]

Well, this makes me feel better . . . :rolleyes:

L.A. Times 4/11/04
Fundamentally, Bush Works on Faith

By Peter Schweizer and Rochelle Schweizer, Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Rochelle Schweizer are the authors of "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty."

NEW YORK — Ask Bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and George W. Bush's Christian faith and you get some strong answers.

"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know" . . .

[zimv20]

"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know"
omfg

[Frohickey]

Okay, so you agree that mercury is aerosolized by the operation of coal-fired power plants. How long have coal-fired power plants been in operation? How long have nuclear-fission power plants been in operation? How long have hydro-electric power plants been in operation?

How many planned nuclear-fission power plants or hydro-electric power plants never were built because of opposition by various groups?

Do the mercury scrubbers eliminate mercury, completely, 100%?

[skunk]

Well, this makes me feel better . . . :rolleyes:

L.A. Times 4/11/04
Fundamentally, Bush Works on Faith

"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know" . . .
We're DOOMED! :eek:

[takao]

How long have coal-fired power plants been in operation? How long have nuclear-fission power plants been in operation? How long have hydro-electric power plants been in operation?

wikipedia:
"On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant generated electricity but no headlines--at least, not in the West. According to the Uranium Institute (London, England), the first reactor to generate electricity for commercial use was at Obninsk, Russia"

for hydro electric the first in our region were made during the 1890s (which leads to long history of austrian waterelectric power: 67% of all electricity are made by hydro plants)

[skunk]

wikipedia:
"On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant generated electricity but no headlines--at least, not in the West. According to the Uranium Institute (London, England), the first reactor to generate electricity for commercial use was at Obninsk, Russia"
According to this, the first operational commercial plant was Calder Hall UK in 1956

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/wp_5-2001/21668.html

[numediaman]

wikipedia:
"On June 27, 1954 . . . the first reactor to generate electricity for commercial use was at Obninsk, Russia"

Those damn capitalist communists.

[amnesiac1984]

Well, this makes me feel better . . . :rolleyes:

L.A. Times 4/11/04
Fundamentally, Bush Works on Faith

By Peter Schweizer and Rochelle Schweizer, Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Rochelle Schweizer are the authors of "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty."

NEW YORK — Ask Bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and George W. Bush's Christian faith and you get some strong answers.

"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know" . . .

If this is true then can't have been very good friends of Bush, surely they know it is a very scandalous thing to say. Maybe he has many enemies close to him. If it is true then, **** it we are FUBAR!

[Dippo]

No.

[Thanatoast]

yes - and a challenge, name one worse, and why.

[wwworry]

Okay, so you agree that mercury is aerosolized by the operation of coal-fired power plants. How long have coal-fired power plants been in operation? How long have nuclear-fission power plants been in operation? How long have hydro-electric power plants been in operation?

How many planned nuclear-fission power plants or hydro-electric power plants never were built because of opposition by various groups?

Do the mercury scrubbers eliminate mercury, completely, 100%?

Frohickey, it doesn't matter how long whatever kinds of other plants have been around. We have the capability to put scubbers in the coal fired plants and reduce the mercury output by 98% (a vague recolection). Mercury is a known health hazard. There is no reason to avoid scrubbers but for the temporary profit margin. How can you argue that this mercury output is a good thing?

[IJ Reilly]

How can you argue that this mercury output is a good thing?

Well I don't know about you, but I like sticking my finger into the Thanksgiving turkey and being able to tell when it's done.

[Dippo]

yes - and a challenge, name one worse, and why.

Carter
1) American Embassy in Teheran
2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
3) Iraq invades Iran
4) Panama Canal Treaty
5) Three Mile Island nuclear incident
6) Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

It seems like a all of the problems we have today are rooted in the Carter Administration...

[pseudobrit]

Carter
1) American Embassy in Teheran
2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
3) Iraq invades Iran
4) Panama Canal Treaty
5) Three Mile Island nuclear incident
6) Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

It seems like a all of the problems we have today are rooted in the Carter Administration...

So Carter was responsible for the actions of Iran, Iraq, CCCP, Egypt, Israel and a nuclear technician in Middletown?

[numediaman]

So Carter was responsible for the actions of Iran, Iraq, CCCP, Egypt, Israel and a nuclear technician in Middletown?

Yes, he was also responsible for the U.S. hockey team beating the CCCP, the Yankees beating the Dodgers twice in the World Series, and my D in journalism history (not bad considering I never attended a class).

[mactastic]

Carter
1) American Embassy in Teheran
2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
3) Iraq invades Iran
4) Panama Canal Treaty
5) Three Mile Island nuclear incident
6) Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

It seems like a all of the problems we have today are rooted in the Carter Administration...

Well thats a nice list there. Now could you expound a little and tell us why you think Carter is responsible for not only those 6 items, but also how he is responsible for 'all' of the problems we are having today. Did Carter actually have a hand in the Enron debacle? How about gasoline prices? Did Carter do that, or could that be beyond his powers?

Or, how about this one... Can Jimmy Carter concieve of a Habitat for Humanity house so big that he can't build it? ;)

[Mike Teezie]

Don't even get me started on gasonline prices.

I was supposed to drive out to Los Angeles this summer with a friend (been planning the adventure for years).

But now, its much cheaper to fly!

:mad:

[Ugg]

Carter
1) American Embassy in Teheran
2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
3) Iraq invades Iran
4) Panama Canal Treaty
5) Three Mile Island nuclear incident
6) Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

It seems like a all of the problems we have today are rooted in the Carter Administration...

If we look at the causes of the above incidents I think we see a different story.

Unlimited support for the Shah that dated back to the 50s. His human rights abuses and squandering of public funds were overlooked due to his "western" outlook on life.

American support for repressive regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia led to the growing Muslim fundamentalist movement that led to the mujahadeen taking over Afghanistan. Of course, our support of the mujahadeen included gw's arch enemy, bin Laden. When will we ever learn that the enemy of our enemy is never, ever our friend.....

Unlimited support for Iraq because they wanted to invade Iran even though Iraq as we have learned was far worse than Iran ever will be.

What about the PC treaty???? It was never ours to begin with, Carter had it right, we needed be less of an empire and more of a nation.

Ah, now that is very interesting, I doubt that Carter can be blamed for 3 mile, but who knows? I think it has more to do with local corruption than national politics.

Certainly our support of Egypt has cost us billions but at least there has been some peace in the middle east as a result.

[IJ Reilly]

I blame Jimmy Carter for disrupting the space-time continuum. Spock need not have died.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, it doesn't matter how long whatever kinds of other plants have been around. We have the capability to put scubbers in the coal fired plants and reduce the mercury output by 98% (a vague recolection). Mercury is a known health hazard. There is no reason to avoid scrubbers but for the temporary profit margin. How can you argue that this mercury output is a good thing?

I'm not. But wouldn't it be better to be using nuclear energy instead. You have virtually no CO2 emissions, no mercury emissions, a low mining footprint, higher energy density. Just have to make sure that the power plant runs safely and efficiently. But if we have smart scientists and engineers, we can surely run it safely and efficiently. Just have to relabel the 'reaction chamber' as the conference room for lawyers and accountants that don't listen to scientists and engineers. :p

[zimv20]

wouldn't it be better to be using nuclear energy instead.
yes and no. i think it's critically important for the US to invest in and use new technologies. i'm particularly a fan of wind and wave farms. i'm not even all that opposed to nuclear energy, for some of the reasons you cited.

as we work toward that, i think it's also important to improve the existing coal et. al. plants, especially in regards to emissions. none of this will happen overnight, and as anyone who's worked in IT knows, one must maintain the production system while developing the new one.

[Frohickey]

If we look at the causes of the above incidents I think we see a different story.

Unlimited support for the Shah that dated back to the 50s. His human rights abuses and squandering of public funds were overlooked due to his "western" outlook on life.

American support for repressive regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia led to the growing Muslim fundamentalist movement that led to the mujahadeen taking over Afghanistan. Of course, our support of the mujahadeen included gw's arch enemy, bin Laden. When will we ever learn that the enemy of our enemy is never, ever our friend.....

Unlimited support for Iraq because they wanted to invade Iran even though Iraq as we have learned was far worse than Iran ever will be.

What about the PC treaty???? It was never ours to begin with, Carter had it right, we needed be less of an empire and more of a nation.

Ah, now that is very interesting, I doubt that Carter can be blamed for 3 mile, but who knows? I think it has more to do with local corruption than national politics.

Certainly our support of Egypt has cost us billions but at least there has been some peace in the middle east as a result.

Man, how quickly we forget that the years after WW2, all the way to the early 1990s, was when we were fighting a proxy war, known as the Cold War. In this, both sides supported unsavory rulers. Both sides were willing to look the other way for the support against the other side.

Remember that our support of Iraq was to counter Iran, and its host, the Soviet Union. Remember that our support of Osama was to counter the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Also remember that Egypt was a prior Soviet client state. I think that our support of Egypt should not be support. I think that our support of Egypt should be a trade of land with money.

Could you imagine the tax revenue we'd get if only we bought the Sinai with the billions we have given to the Egyptians. I could see 24 hour buffet lines, 500 blackjack tables and 50k slot machines. Plus, look at the number of Egyptian nationals with work visas that we'd be employing for camel valet parking. :D

We will have peace in the Middle East when 40% of the population in the Middle East have mortgage payments to make.

[3rdpath]

Carter
1) American Embassy in Teheran
2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
3) Iraq invades Iran
4) Panama Canal Treaty
5) Three Mile Island nuclear incident
6) Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

It seems like a all of the problems we have today are rooted in the Carter Administration...

you left out:

1) my broken radiator hose
2) my root canal ( and all tooth decay in general)
3) troy being booted from the apprentice

and soooo much more.....

[Frohickey]

you left out:

1) my broken radiator hose
2) my root canal ( and all tooth decay in general)
3) troy being booted from the apprentice

and soooo much more.....

Was your tooth decay related to overindulgence in peanuts? ;)

[skunk]

I think that our support of Egypt should not be support. I think that our support of Egypt should be a trade of land with money.

Could you imagine the tax revenue we'd get if only we bought the Sinai with the billions we have given to the Egyptians. I could see 24 hour buffet lines, 500 blackjack tables and 50k slot machines. Plus, look at the number of Egyptian nationals with work visas that we'd be employing for camel valet parking. :D

We will have peace in the Middle East when 40% of the population in the Middle East have mortgage payments to make.
There: that's just the problem. The muslim countries don't WANT to be bought. Many Egyptians probably quite LIKE living in Egypt, without 24 hr neon lights and McDonalds. Egypt could probably use more foreign aid (of which the US pays a pitifully small percentage of GDP to anyone) instead of tied loans.

[IJ Reilly]

He's just pushing buttons now. Unless you have a lot of tolerance for that sort of thing, you're better off just clicking "ignore."

[Frohickey]

There: that's just the problem. The muslim countries don't WANT to be bought. Many Egyptians probably quite LIKE living in Egypt, without 24 hr neon lights and McDonalds. Egypt could probably use more foreign aid (of which the US pays a pitifully small percentage of GDP to anyone) instead of tied loans.

They could do it as a 99-year lease, same as China did with Hong Kong.

[mactastic]

They could do it as a 99-year lease, same as China did with Hong Kong.

I thought you were against things like the Panama Canal Treaty?

[Sayhey]

Man, how quickly we forget that the years after WW2, all the way to the early 1990s, was when we were fighting a proxy war, known as the Cold War. In this, both sides supported unsavory rulers. Both sides were willing to look the other way for the support against the other side.

Remember that our support of Iraq was to counter Iran, and its host, the Soviet Union. Remember that our support of Osama was to counter the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Also remember that Egypt was a prior Soviet client state. I think that our support of Egypt should not be support. I think that our support of Egypt should be a trade of land with money.

Could you imagine the tax revenue we'd get if only we bought the Sinai with the billions we have given to the Egyptians. I could see 24 hour buffet lines, 500 blackjack tables and 50k slot machines. Plus, look at the number of Egyptian nationals with work visas that we'd be employing for camel valet parking. :D

We will have peace in the Middle East when 40% of the population in the Middle East have mortgage payments to make.

Frohickey,
where do you get this stuff - the John Birch Society's condensed version of history? The Soviets as "host" of the Islamic revolution in Iran? Egypt as a client state of the Soviets? I know right-wing lunatics who don't divide the world in such black and white terms and don't distort the events of the cold war in such a cavalier manner. Iran looked at the Soviets as a market for guns and an enemy on par with the "Great Satan" of the US. Egypt had no sympathy for Soviet style communism or anything else but their military support and trade. To reduce their relationship to a "client state" is part of the oversimplification of the world that created the mess we are in now. Why don’t you look a little deeper into the history of the region before you post this kind of silliness.

[Frohickey]

If the choice is giving things away, or getting something for it, better to get something for it, even if it is only temporary.

Besides, when something incurs a cost, there is a vested interest in using it wisely. This is for both sides.

[SlyHunter]

Frohickey, it doesn't matter how long whatever kinds of other plants have been around. We have the capability to put scubbers in the coal fired plants and reduce the mercury output by 98% (a vague recolection). Mercury is a known health hazard. There is no reason to avoid scrubbers but for the temporary profit margin. How can you argue that this mercury output is a good thing?
Then why didn't Clinton do it while he was in office? Why did Clinton wait till after he lost the election to put in the new standards for Mercury? All Bush did was push back the new standards back to the old standards that were in existance prior to him coming into office. He did not lower them.

[mactastic]

All Bush did was push back the new standards back to the old standards that were in existance prior to him coming into office. He did not lower them.

So I suppose I can count on your support when President Kerry rolls back the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich and all the other conservatives are shrieking 'he's raising our taxes'! because it won't really be a tax hike, just a reinstituting of the old tax rates?

[SlyHunter]

So I suppose I can count on your support when President Kerry rolls back the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich and all the other conservatives are shrieking 'he's raising our taxes'! because it won't really be a tax hike, just a reinstituting of the old tax rates?
Nope and Kerry plans on rolling back the tax cuts on those who make more than 200,000 not the super rich. Most business owners have a reported income of more than 200,000, the very same people you and I will get laid off as a cost saving measure so they can afford to pay their taxes.

I am not against the rich paying more in percentage than me or the poor. They don't have to worry about the increase causing them to have to skip a meal. However if you take too big of an advantage of the "so called rich" They can afford to leave and take ther income with them and then we will be left with no one to pay the bills.

[mactastic]

Nope..

So you'll admit to hypocrisy... interesting tactic.

[SlyHunter]

So you'll admit to hypocrisy... interesting tactic.
What hypocracy. I am against any tax rollbacks. I think the rich are taxed enough with the tax cuts in place including the ones that have not been enacted yet. I think we need to cut spending and not abuse our so called rich more than is actually necessary. For again they can afford to move and then they won't be here to tax anymore. Like their doing in California. The smart ones are leaving that state as fast as they can.

exception (there is always an exception)
I don't like the capital gains tax cut tho. I think this just means people will more likely want to be paid dividends it is still seen as an expense by the corporation and gives them no incentive to pay them. I think corporations should be allowed to write off dividend payments the same as they write off payroll or any other expense and that would give them bigger incentives to pay dividends. Then the individual who receives the dividends would be responsible to pay the taxes on it.

[pseudobrit]

They can afford to leave and take ther income with them and then we will be left with no one to pay the bills.

I like this battlecry, another one that sounds likely if you don't take a moment to think about it.

The rich will up and leave because their income taxes go up 5%?

I don't think so. You could raise them 20% and they'd still be paying less than most of the industrialised world, and even then the rich aren't rich from their earnings but from their holdings.

OTOH, corporations have shown that they'll leave to save any amount of money.

[wwworry]

Then why didn't Clinton do it while he was in office? Why did Clinton wait till after he lost the election to put in the new standards for Mercury? All Bush did was push back the new standards back to the old standards that were in existance prior to him coming into office. He did not lower them.

Because it wasn't until 1998 that the EPA issued new guidelines on smokestack mercury. And I do not know why Clinton waited that long. He should have done it sooner. Maybe he thought Gore would win and Gore would do it. When Gore lost Clinton knew Bush would never do it because Bush's election was paid for by energy companies. Look at their pattern of political donations.

It sounds like you are in favor of mercury put out by coal fired plants. Why is that? Because the dreaded Clin-Ton issued regulations against it?

And Frohickey propses nuclear power instead like that's cost effective or even possible. In other words, "Let's do nothing and change the subject." (kind of like the hydrogen powered cars initiative)

Besides another reason why no new nuclear power plants are being constructed is because power companies were not making money doing it. There are way to expensive to build and they still don't know where to put the waste.

I don't see why anyone who drinks water or breaths would be in favor of the changes in regulations that allow more mercury. Unless you were making a ton of money off the change...

[mactastic]

What hypocracy.

The hypocrisy that can claim that Dubya isn't raising mercury standards, he's just reinstituting the old standards, yet complains that it is raising taxes when Kerry gets around to reinstituting the old tax rates. That's not a logical argument, it's made soley on partisan grounds. At least be consistent in your beliefs. Either it's OK to call it lowering the mercury standards, or it's not ok to complain about a supposed 'tax hike'. You can't have it both ways.

[SlyHunter]

Because it wasn't until 1998 that the EPA issued new guidelines on smokestack mercury. And I do not know why Clinton waited that long. He should have done it sooner. Maybe he thought Gore would win and Gore would do it. When Gore lost Clinton knew Bush would never do it because Bush's election was paid for by energy companies. Look at their pattern of political donations.

Clinton enacted this executive order after Gore lost the election not before. Along with a bunch of other executive orders which he would not have wanted enacted during his own tenure which is why he waited so long.

It sounds like you are in favor of mercury put out by coal fired plants. Why is that? Because the dreaded Clin-Ton issued regulations against it?

Why would I be in favor of mercury being put into water? I drink water. My soda has water in it. I'm in favor of actual scientific research proving the need for increase. All Bush did was stall the enactment of the new requirements so as to give researches and his own staff more time to study the need for it.

And Frohickey propses nuclear power instead like that's cost effective or even possible. In other words, "Let's do nothing and change the subject." (kind of like the hydrogen powered cars initiative)

Sounds like you are in favor of mercury produced coal fired plants since you don't seem to care for any of the viable alternatives. Expecting the poor to spend thousands of dollars on hydrogen powered cars is a bit short sighted. Course you probably would want to tax the rich so you can create a new wellfare benefit to help buy the poor their cars? The market is slow but it is inevitable that when the technology to make these cars more cost effective these cars will and are being produced. Just can't expect everything to happen right this minute. You and I drank that water, our parents drank that water we lived.

Besides another reason why no new nuclear power plants are being constructed is because power companies were not making money doing it. There are way to expensive to build and they still don't know where to put the waste.

How about expensive new regulations that are in place making it not cost efficient to build them? How about everytime they try to build one they have to face a multitudes of law suits cuzz nobody want them in their town?

I don't see why anyone who drinks water or breaths would be in favor of the changes in regulations that allow more mercury. Unless you were making a ton of money off the change...
nobody made changes that allow more mercury in water they removed changes that reduced mercury in water more than it has been. There is arsenic in that water too want to make a law that 0 arsenic is allowed in that water? You want to pay 15 dollars for a bottle of water? Sometimes you got to get out of fantasyland and get grip on reality.

[SlyHunter]

The hypocrisy that can claim that Dubya isn't raising mercury standards, he's just reinstituting the old standards, yet complains that it is raising taxes when Kerry gets around to reinstituting the old tax rates. That's not a logical argument, it's made soley on partisan grounds. At least be consistent in your beliefs. Either it's OK to call it lowering the mercury standards, or it's not ok to complain about a supposed 'tax hike'. You can't have it both ways.
I never called it a tax hike. Your accusing me of something I did not do or say.

[mactastic]

I never called it a tax hike. Your accusing me of something I did not do or say.

I asked if I could count on your support against the Republican hordes who will claim that Kerry is 'raising taxes' when he rolls back the Bush tax cuts that haven't taken effect yet. You said no, even though you previously stated that we couldn't call Bush's mercury level changes a 'lowering of the standards because he was just rolling them back to where they had been. Those positions are at odds with each other.

I'll offer you the chance to be clear on the matter. Do you consider a tax cut retracted a tax hike or don't you?

[Frohickey]

Then why didn't Clinton do it while he was in office? Why did Clinton wait till after he lost the election to put in the new standards for Mercury? All Bush did was push back the new standards back to the old standards that were in existance prior to him coming into office. He did not lower them.

Dunno. Ask Pseudobrit, mactastic, or IJReilly. I'm still trying to figure out what was going through him mind when he said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". ;)

I think that Clinton left Bush a few ExecutiveOrder landmines. Need to feed some fresh meat to the environmentalists.

[pseudobrit]

Dunno. Ask Pseudobrit, mactastic, or IJReilly.

Why am I supposed to answer for the actions of Clinton 3 1/2 years ago?

[Frohickey]

And Frohickey propses nuclear power instead like that's cost effective or even possible. In other words, "Let's do nothing and change the subject." (kind of like the hydrogen powered cars initiative)

Besides another reason why no new nuclear power plants are being constructed is because power companies were not making money doing it. There are way to expensive to build and they still don't know where to put the waste.

Hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea, due to the inefficiencies inherent in manufacturing hydrogen gas, unless its from solar power via plants.

The reason nuclear waste has to be stored is because its not being recycled anymore. There used to be a nuclear material recycling plant operated by the federal government, its been shut down, and so, once nuclear fuel rods have accumulated enough waste products to not be efficient, they are stored, instead of recycled to repurify them.

As to the mercury and arsenic levels, I'm sure that you have heard that the cost of the last 10% is 90%, or some such idea. I think that we are in that range now. I think that there is more worry about mercury in childhood vaccines. There was a story about autism in Silicon Valley children a few years ago.

Actually, how about an advertising campaign by the anti-mercury/anti-arsenic levels. They can put an ad campaign urging customers to call their power companies and urge them to spend the money for the scrubbers.

[wwworry]

Your reply to my post is competely bizarre. Maybe you are "mad as a hatter" (from mercury poisoning) Let's go through it:

Clinton enacted this executive order after Gore lost the election not before. Along with a bunch of other executive orders which he would not have wanted enacted during his own tenure which is why he waited so long.
You just guessing here. Plus the new guidelines weren't relased until 1998. Plus as I said before he waited too long. I fault clinton for this. In any case it makes no difference.

Why would I be in favor of mercury being put into water? I drink water. My soda has water in it. I'm in favor of actual scientific research proving the need for increase. All Bush did was stall the enactment of the new requirements so as to give researches and his own staff more time to study the need for it.
There has been years of research on this and the results are clear. Mercury is a health hazard. Just because you don't know about it does not mean it does not exist. Do a google search on the health hazards of mercury.

Sounds like you are in favor of mercury produced coal fired plants since you don't seem to care for any of the viable alternatives. Expecting the poor to spend thousands of dollars on hydrogen powered cars is a bit short sighted. Course you probably would want to tax the rich so you can create a new wellfare benefit to help buy the poor their cars? The market is slow but it is inevitable that when the technology to make these cars more cost effective these cars will and are being produced. Just can't expect everything to happen right this minute. You and I drank that water, our parents drank that water we lived.
I only have to say "What the hell?" Did I ever endorse hydrogen cars? No. I made fun of it as another "let's change the subject and do nothing" plan. I must have set of the Limbaugh alarm in you because in one paragraph you're all on welfare moms, class warfare, higher taxes etc. DING DITTO DING!

Yes your parents lived but I think there were some slow side effects. ;) Besides if you know anything about mercury you know that it accumulates up the food chain.

How about expensive new regulations that are in place making it not cost efficient to build them? How about everytime they try to build one they have to face a multitudes of law suits cuzz nobody want them in their town?
How about the fact that they are still trying to recoup the costs of ones built 30 years ago. They are not even trying to build them. That's what I said. It has nothing to do with regulations. But if you're in favor of unregulated nuclear plants I think there is a lot of cheap property surrounding them.

nobody made changes that allow more mercury in water they removed changes that reduced mercury in water more than it has been. There is arsenic in that water too want to make a law that 0 arsenic is allowed in that water? You want to pay 15 dollars for a bottle of water? Sometimes you got to get out of fantasyland and get grip on reality.

Is this the reality where I said anything about arsenic? and by your same logic when the next president repeals the Bush tax cuts he is doing what?


Anyway, it's just strange what contortions people will go to so they can have more mercury in their water. All they have to do is install scrubbers in the older plants. 8% of women in child bearing age have levels that are too high. Mercury causes developmental damage in children and odd sorts of madness, hence "mad as a hatter".

In the mid-1800s hat makers used hot solutions of mercuric nitrate to shape wool felt hats. They typically worked in poorly ventilated rooms leading to chronic occupational exposure to mercury and neurological damage, the hatters' syndrome.

[zimv20]

I don't like the capital gains tax cut tho.
i'm not sure where you draw the line between those making >$200k/yr and the rich, but...

anyone who invests in stocks is affected by cap gains. it's me, it might be you (401k? IRA?). you don't have to be rich. so what i see you arguing is that "rich" people shouldn't be taxed more, but everyone else should. is that what you mean to say?

[SlyHunter]

I asked if I could count on your support against the Republican hordes who will claim that Kerry is 'raising taxes' when he rolls back the Bush tax cuts that haven't taken effect yet. You said no, even though you previously stated that we couldn't call Bush's mercury level changes a 'lowering of the standards because he was just rolling them back to where they had been. Those positions are at odds with each other.

I'll offer you the chance to be clear on the matter. Do you consider a tax cut retracted a tax hike or don't you?
Correction I said

Nope and Kerry plans on rolling back the tax cuts on those who make more than 200,000 not the super rich.

In that single sentence I corrected your question that called it "raising taxes" and I called it "rolling back the tax cuts" I also corrected your mistatement that its only on the "super rich" by noting that it is actually on anyone who makes more than 200,000 who I do not consider the "super rich"

So maybe you didn't read what I said but simply saw what you wanted to see?

[SlyHunter]

Why am I supposed to answer for the actions of Clinton 3 1/2 years ago?
You cannot accuse Bush of raising mercury levels in water and not look at the history of that and realize he simply undid a last minute executive order of Clinton that hadn't taken in effect yet. You brought up the questions without including all of the facts.

[wwworry]

Hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea, due to the inefficiencies inherent in manufacturing hydrogen gas, unless its from solar power via plants.

The reason nuclear waste has to be stored is because its not being recycled anymore. There used to be a nuclear material recycling plant operated by the federal government, its been shut down, and so, once nuclear fuel rods have accumulated enough waste products to not be efficient, they are stored, instead of recycled to repurify them.

As to the mercury and arsenic levels, I'm sure that you have heard that the cost of the last 10% is 90%, or some such idea. I think that we are in that range now. I think that there is more worry about mercury in childhood vaccines. There was a story about autism in Silicon Valley children a few years ago.

Actually, how about an advertising campaign by the anti-mercury/anti-arsenic levels. They can put an ad campaign urging customers to call their power companies and urge them to spend the money for the scrubbers.

I agree with what you said about the hydrogen cars.

The "recycling plant" was one of the worst ecological disasters in America. I think they are still trying to clean it up.

Yes get rid of it in vaccines.

I think most people are against having old coal fired plants dumping mercury in their drinking water. Bush caved into the power industry on this one. It is strange how some people defend it.

[wwworry]

You cannot accuse Bush of raising mercury levels in water and not look at the history of that and realize he simply undid a last minute executive order of Clinton that hadn't taken in effect yet. You brought up the questions without including all of the facts.


The bottom line is Bush took action, the "undid", which will result in higher levels of mercury than if he had not "undid".

I wish he had not not uninvaded Iraq.

[SlyHunter]

Your reply to my post is competely bizarre. Maybe you are "mad as a hatter" (from mercury poisoning) Let's go through it:


You just guessing here. Plus the new guidelines weren't relased until 1998. Plus as I said before he waited too long. I fault clinton for this. In any case it makes no difference.

I'm not guessing on this I had the news report on this via internet web site and I saw the reporting on this time and time again on FOX news for no one else is willing to report anything that goes against the Democrat agenda. The people who were just guessing are the EPA. They didn't do the study's showing any real damage. They just did the study's of potential damage via computer analyst.

There has been years of research on this and the results are clear. Mercury is a health hazard. Just because you don't know about it does not mean it does not exist. Do a google search on the health hazards of mercury.

what is not self evident is how much mercury is a health hazard. You can't get rid of 100% of it. In fact some mercury like all elements are actually necessary to sustain life. So the real study should've been how much is too much. Which they did not do.

Yes your parents lived but I think there were some slow side effects. ;) Besides if you know anything about mercury you know that it accumulates up the food chain.

just like BS and personal attacks.


Is this the reality where I said anything about arsenic? and by your same logic when the next president repeals the Bush tax cuts he is doing what?

You may not have brought up arsenic but why didn't you? It is a big of a health hazard as Mercury. I brought it up to establish a point. There are allot of chemicals in water you can't get rid of 100%. And we can't afford to pay for more expensive water to get rid of more then is necessary to get rid of. More study needs to be done.

Anyway, it's just strange what contortions people will go to so they can have more mercury in their water. All they have to do is install scrubbers in the older plants. 8% of women in child bearing age have levels that are too high. Mercury causes developmental damage in children and odd sorts of madness, hence "mad as a hatter".
My grandfather became unemployed because they closed the coal mines in Southern Illinois due to the fact they were unwilling to pay for scrubbers to get rid of Sulphur that was in the coal there for it was cheaper to lay everyone off and dig for coal where there was a natural lower sulfur content. The entire town is almost gone now because of that coal mines closer. Forcing plants to put in scrubbers for mercury especially if they havn't really been proven as necessary for our health is an added expense that can cost allot of people their jobs. You should not do this just because you can. You should not do this just because mercury is poisonous. You need to look at how much is too much first. Apparenlty it hadn't killed you me or our grandparents so it probably isn't as poisonous as you claim. How in the world did you survive drinking that same water if it was as bad as you seem to think.

[SlyHunter]

i'm not sure where you draw the line between those making >$200k/yr and the rich, but...

anyone who invests in stocks is affected by cap gains. it's me, it might be you (401k? IRA?). you don't have to be rich. so what i see you arguing is that "rich" people shouldn't be taxed more, but everyone else should. is that what you mean to say?
I own stock.
1. People with 401k and IRA do not pay taxes on dividends. This tax cut did not save them a penny.
2. The reason for the tax cut is because of double taxation. They taxed the corporation for the income and then when it pays you dividends they tax you for the dividend income. So they got rid of the capital gains. Which in my mind was backwards. Corporations don't pay taxes on money paid as earnings by employees it is considered a payroll expense and thus a tax write off. Same if owner removes money from business via a capital withdrawal the company does not pay taxes on that money it is a tax write off. Using that same logic they should've made it so that dividends paid by the corporation is also a tax write off that they do not pay taxes on. It would be a more streamlined system and promote corporations into paying dividends where they weren't before. Most corporations don't pay dividends and the ones that do pay very little. There is very little incentive for them to do so for to pay dividends actually decreases the value of the corporation and can decrease the value of their stock. Now following the same logic since the corporation is no longer paying taxes on dividends paid out that money isn't being taxed at all thus the person receiving the dividend would include it as income on their tax form and pay taxes on it. They would be paying taxes on money they would not have received had it not been for the tax cut to the corporation in the first place.

This would help everyone who owns stock and promote the payment of dividends which Bush claimed was one of the reasons he put in the capital gains cut. Either he was ignorant or was lieing because such a tax cut that he actually enacted (not the way I think it should've been) does not make it better for a corporation to pay the dividends it just makes it better to receive them.

[pseudobrit]

You cannot accuse Bush of raising mercury levels in water and not look at the history of that and realize he simply undid a last minute executive order of Clinton that hadn't taken in effect yet. You brought up the questions without including all of the facts.

I didn't. In fact, I haven't said a peep about the mercury debate yet.

I made no accusations.

I brought up no questions.

Please get your facts straight.

[SlyHunter]

The bottom line is Bush took action, the "undid", which will result in higher levels of mercury than if he had not "undid".

I wish he had not not uninvaded Iraq.
The bottom line is Clinton signed an act that would cost allot of money without providing the money to fund the necessary enforcement of such an act. Bush undid the unfunded initiative until more study could be done and the decision as to whether or not states should be forced to pay more for their water can be made by more informed individuals than apparently Clinton was. The bottom line is they do not know how much is too much they assume something is bad and therefore any is bad and that is a bad assumption. There are allot of chemicals in water and if your going to do this for one you will start the ball rolling on all and not just on water on everthing and well I don't want my taxes going up to make perfect steril water and food for everyone when perfect steril water and food is also bad for us.

Its easy to make an unfunded mandate just sign the thing.

[SlyHunter]

I didn't. In fact, I haven't said a peep about the mercury debate yet.

I made no accusations.

I brought up no questions.

Please get your facts straight.
Sorry I went back and look at the history of this. I have no idea why your name was brought up or why the guy that did bring your name up did or not. Myself I assumed you were someone you weren't based on what I thought I read showing that I am not perfect.

[pseudobrit]

Apparenlty it hadn't killed you me or our grandparents so it probably isn't as poisonous as you claim. How in the world did you survive drinking that same water if it was as bad as you seem to think.

You're totally ignoring the fact that different areas are affected in different ways.

Just because my parents and I never died of thyroid cancer doesn't mean kids in Pripyat and Kiev weren't poisoned by the Chornobyl meltdown.

[pseudobrit]

Bush undid the unfunded initiative until more study could be done

He killed it. Let's be honest here. It's not coming back whether or not more study is done.

[SlyHunter]

You're totally ignoring the fact that different areas are affected in different ways.

Just because my parents and I never died of thyroid cancer doesn't mean kids in Pripyat and Kiev weren't poisoned by the Chornobyl meltdown.
But the mercury in the water was a constant and in fact in larger quantities in the waters your parents drank. Your comparing apples and oranges. We aren't comparing the water in Alaska vs the water in Florida but the water with whatever legal maximum of mercury in it now vs the same water with a larger legal maximum in the past that our parents drank. And he's complaining that we didn't lower it lower than what it is now when they havn't done the research as to how much is too much. Also it was an unfunded mandate thus would've required the raising of taxes or the reduction of something else in order to pay for. Bush got hit with this soon as he came into office because Clinton passed allot of executive orders after the election was over in his final months in office.

[SlyHunter]

He killed it. Let's be honest here. It's not coming back whether or not more study is done.
That is your opinion not fact.
That is what I would call an unsubstatiated accusation.
And even so maybe the amount that is the legal maximum today is a safe level. you cannot remove 100% of everything that is bad for you. FAt is bad for you and can kill you maybe we should close all McDonalds. Maybe Clinton should've made it an executive order and then when Bush cancels it then you'll be complaining well I want to die from too much fat unless I think all fat should be removed from our diet.

[pseudobrit]

But the mercury in the water was a constant and in fact in larger quantities in the waters your parents drank.

No, the allowable limit was a constant. The actual amount varies from source to source, and may be above the limit in private wells that aren't tested properly.

Your comparing apples and oranges. We aren't comparing the water in Alaska vs the water in Florida but the water with whatever legal maximum of mercury in it now vs the same water with a larger legal maximum in the past that our parents drank.

But we are compaing the water in Alaska vs. the water in Florida. Don't you understand that if the legal limit of unobtainium is 500 ppm, some places will have 500 while others could have 240 or 0?

[pseudobrit]

That is your opinion not fact.
That is what I would call an unsubstatiated accusation.

Of course it is. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You honestly thing Bush will have a change of heart this summer and confess that studies have shown he was wrong and that he'll reinstate the lower levels?

you cannot remove 100% of everything that is bad for you. FAt is bad for you and can kill you maybe we should close all McDonalds. Maybe Clinton should've made it an executive order and then when Bush cancels it then you'll be complaining well I want to die from too much fat unless I think all fat should be removed from our diet.

Red herring.

[zimv20]

I own stock.
1. People with 401k and IRA do not pay taxes on dividends. This tax cut did not save them a penny.

ack, i shouldn't have brought those up as examples, given all the tax-deferrment considerations.

regarding cap gains, interest and dividends, i'm for lowering taxes on them. not because of double taxation (more on that below), but because i think saving is inherently a good thing and people should be incented to do it more.

popular wisdom is that americans are more in debt than ever before. this is gonna bite us in the ass in a big way, imo. if only we acquired savings like we did personal debt, but i digress.

regarding double taxation on dividends....

does it matter, from a "how we feel about it" perspective, if the person receiving the dividends is employed by the company?

when i had my company (a C corp), in which i owned a minority share, most of my compensation was through salary and bonus. clearly, i paid taxes on that. sometimes we gave ourselves dividends, and we paid taxes on that. after, as you mentioned, the company did.

now, in this particular instance, the only shareholders were those of us who started the firm, and we all worked there. but what if we brought on an investor whose sole compensation was through dividends?

should he be as concerned about the double taxation as us owners? i don't know.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey,
where do you get this stuff - the John Birch Society's condensed version of history? The Soviets as "host" of the Islamic revolution in Iran? Egypt as a client state of the Soviets?

What kind of weaponry did the Egyptians use in their multiple wars with Israel?
What kind of weaponry did the Iranians use in their war with Iraq?
Who was the Egyptian Chief of Staff that visited the Kremlin asking for spare parts from the Soviets in the eve of one of their wars with Israel? (I'll look his name up from the DVD where he was giving an interview.) ;)

[SlyHunter]

ack, i shouldn't have brought those up as examples, given all the tax-deferrment considerations.

regarding cap gains, interest and dividends, i'm for lowering taxes on them. not because of double taxation (more on that below), but because i think saving is inherently a good thing and people should be incented to do it more.

popular wisdom is that americans are more in debt than ever before. this is gonna bite us in the ass in a big way, imo. if only we acquired savings like we did personal debt, but i digress.

regarding double taxation on dividends....

does it matter, from a "how we feel about it" perspective, if the person receiving the dividends is employed by the company?

when i had my company (a C corp), in which i owned a minority share, most of my compensation was through salary and bonus. clearly, i paid taxes on that. sometimes we gave ourselves dividends, and we paid taxes on that. after, as you mentioned, the company did.

now, in this particular instance, the only shareholders were those of us who started the firm, and we all worked there. but what if we brought on an investor whose sole compensation was through dividends?

should he be as concerned about the double taxation as us owners? i don't know.
Most people don't buy stocks for the dividends so reducing taxes on dividends would not increase the purchase of stocks. If your lucky you make 1-2% of your money and you can get better rates on CD's. So lowering taxes on dividends to get people to save isn't realistic reasoning. Lowering taxes on dividends because of double taxation is in my opinion good reasoning. However it would be better to decrease the corporations taxes because doing so can promote the corporation to pay more in dividends and thus increase in dividends would promote more people in buying stocks. Vs. lowering taxes on dividends which would not promote more people to buy stock since corporations will not have an incentive to raise rates above what you can make on a CD.

[Frohickey]

Besides if you know anything about mercury you know that it accumulates up the food chain.

8% of women in child bearing age have levels that are too high.

Ingested mercury is rapidly absorbed by the intestinal tract and stored in the kidney and liver. Once absorbed, mercury is slowly eliminated in the urine, feces, saliva, sweat and milk. (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26953--,00.html)

Maybe spot-checking of dairy milk, and municipal water systems is a better way to see if mercury levels are rising or not.

Then, I could see a trial run of smokestack scrubbers for coal-fired power plants to remove/reduce the mercury levels, lets say for 10 years. This would require a multi-billion dollar bond from groups that desire the mercury reduction equipment. The bond money, and interest would be returned to the group if mercury levels are shown to decrease in the food chain/water. The bond money and interest would be given to the industries if no decrease or an increase is detected at the end of the 10 year test cycle.

Or...

Groups that desire lowered mercury levels could start an advertising campaign to urge consumers contact their power producers and mandate the equipment.

Are these 8% of women in child-bearing age, minors?

[zimv20]

Most people don't buy stocks for the dividends
depends on a person's risk profile and investment goals. if a person's investment goal is income, they may buy stocks that traditionally pay out dividends. if it's for growth, they will probably buy stocks that are expected to increase in value.

i don't think it's as simple as "dividends vs. CDs". there are dozens if not hundreds of investment vehicles. why reduce it to two?

[SlyHunter]

depends on a person's risk profile and investment goals. if a person's investment goal is income, they may buy stocks that traditionally pay out dividends. if it's for growth, they will probably buy stocks that are expected to increase in value.

i don't think it's as simple as "dividends vs. CDs". there are dozens if not hundreds of investment vehicles. why reduce it to two?
only to simplify the discussion.

[Frohickey]

The "recycling plant" was one of the worst ecological disasters in America. I think they are still trying to clean it up.

I think that we can do it ecologically safe.
Nuclear reprocessing (http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm)
Its already out of the ground. It still has fissile material that can be used to produce more useful energy. Makes sense to recycle it. UK and France can do it, and France didn't wave the white flag neither, so I'm sure we can do it. :eek: :D

[Sayhey]

What kind of weaponry did the Egyptians use in their multiple wars with Israel?
What kind of weaponry did the Iranians use in their war with Iraq?
Who was the Egyptian Chief of Staff that visited the Kremlin asking for spare parts from the Soviets in the eve of one of their wars with Israel?

And if I answer "the Soviets did it" to your little questions just how does it make Egypt or Iran a Soviet Client state? How about a little knowledge of the history of each country? In neither country did the rulers come to power with Soviet help. In neither country did the rulers maintain there rule through the use of Soviet troops. Because a country had trade relations with the Soviet Union, including trade in military goods, did not mean that they were controlled by the Soviets. It is precisely that kind of simplistic view that led the US to support some of the most ruthless dictators in the world.

P.S. - most of the weapons used by Iran during the start of the Iran-Iraq war were of US origin. We also gave them weapons during the Iran/Contra affair.

[Frohickey]

And if I answer "the Soviets did it" to your little questions just how does it make Egypt or Iran a Soviet Client state? How about a little knowledge of the history of each country? In neither country did the rulers come to power with Soviet help. In neither country did the rulers maintain there rule through the use of Soviet troops. Because a country had trade relations with the Soviet Union, including trade in military goods, did not mean that they were controlled by the Soviets. It is precisely that kind of simplistic view that led the US to support some of the most ruthless dictators in the world.

P.S. - most of the weapons used by Iran during the start of the Iran-Iraq war were of US origin. We also gave them weapons during the Iran/Contra affair.

A Washington Post article refers to reports that Egypt is "alleged to possess" chemical weapons. Among its sources, it refers to a September 1983 US intelligence estimate from the CIA, initially made public by Washington Post writers Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta in August 1984. The report claims that "Egypt received Soviet chemical-weapons training, indoctrination and material in the 1960s while it was the major Soviet client in the Middle East." It also refers to Egypt's chemical arsenal as probably the most advanced in the Arab world, a claim supported by the Israelis.
—Don Oberdorfer, "Chemical Arms Curbs Are Sought; Officials Alarmed by Increasing Use of Banned Weapons," Washington Post, 9 September 1985; Barry Schweid, "Source Says Syria Is Producing Chemical Weapons," Associated Press, 26 March 1986; Ian Black, "Israel Tries to Counter Arab Nerve Gas Threat; Defence Officials Worries as Syria Hoards Chemical Arms," The Guardian, 12 December 1986. (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Egypt/3434_3435.html)

[zimv20]

only to simplify the discussion.
you started with: don't lower cap gains tax, 'cuz it doesn't help anyone but the rich (untrue), but lower dividend rates and more people will buy stocks (maybe true)

i'm not sure what you're after. i'm after people saving more, and if lowering cap gains, dividend and interest tax does that, i'm all for it. not only by it costing less to save, but by incenting people to save more (or, for many, start). let's face it -- the only real way to retire is to have investments. it's not just for the "rich" or "super rich".

(at least some) smart people have an investment portfolio, perhaps w/ a manager. that manager knows the tax laws and, within the investor's risk profile and investment goals, can maintain the portfolio to take advantage of those laws. so, it's not just about lowering the dividend tax -- any kind of tax adjustment can be compensated for, for both the rich, super-rich and person hoping to retire someday. that's what i'm getting at.

[SlyHunter]

you started with: don't lower cap gains tax, 'cuz it doesn't help anyone but the rich (untrue), but lower dividend rates and more people will buy stocks (maybe true)

i'm not sure what you're after. i'm after people saving more, and if lowering cap gains, dividend and interest tax does that, i'm all for it. not only by it costing less to save, but by incenting people to save more (or, for many, start). let's face it -- the only real way to retire is to have investments. it's not just for the "rich" or "super rich".

(at least some) smart people have an investment portfolio, perhaps w/ a manager. that manager knows the tax laws and, within the investor's risk profile and investment goals, can maintain the portfolio to take advantage of those laws. so, it's not just about lowering the dividend tax -- any kind of tax adjustment can be compensated for, for both the rich, super-rich and person hoping to retire someday. that's what i'm getting at.
wrong I started with don't let Kerry win and don't roll back the tax cuts, however I wish Bush had done the capital gains tax cut differently.

I think it would have been better to allow corporations to write off dividends as an expense then it would be to allow stock holders (some are individuals some are corporations doesn't matter) to not have to pay taxes on dividends. It is the same net result but gives a bigger incentive to corporations to pay dividends then the way Bush decided to do it. And if Corporations took the incentive to pay bigger dividends that would create an incentive for stock holders to buy stocks for dividend income which is what his stated reason for doing it the way he did was.

The way he did it gives people a reason to want to collect dividends (more so than before) but does nothing to actually increase the dividends because why should the corporation that pays dividends care what the tax load of the ones receiving the dividends is. They don't base whether or not or how much they are going to pay on how much the receivers tax load is. So all Bush did was make it cheaper for existing stock holders without creating any reason for additional growth.

[zimv20]

I think it would have been better to allow corporations to write off dividends as an expense then it would be to allow stock holders (some are individuals some are corporations doesn't matter) to not have to pay taxes on dividends.
i don't understand your fixation on dividends, to the exclusion of cap gains and interest tax decreases. any or all helps the common investor. are all your investments in dividend growth funds? (if so, diversify!)

[amnesiac1984]

Hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea, due to the inefficiencies inherent in manufacturing hydrogen gas, unless its from solar power via plants.

No longer true, New Scientist reported a breakthrough in small reactors the size of a fuel tank that could turn plant ethanol into hydrogen for use in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen cars are different from hydrogen fuel cell cars as a hydrogen fuel cell needs either a supply of hydrogen or a supply of electricity to recharge, if you are going to recharge a fuel cell with electricity you won't need to top up the hydrogen levels at all.

[Sayhey]

Frohickey,

I never said you couldn't find a website that uses the same language as you do in describing Egypt's or even Iran's relationship with the Soviets. What I did say is that it is obviously over simplistic and wrong to do so. May I ask you a question? If Egypt was a "client state" of the Soviet Union (by this I take it to mean it was controlled by the Soviets and did their bidding), just how did Sadat throw out the Soviet military advisors? It seems to me that when Dubcek tried to move away from an ideological identity with the Soviets they responded with troops. Why was it no troops were used to restore this "client" relationship you believe existed in Egypt? Many, many countries had trade relations with the USSR and some of those depended on them for military goods, but to put all those countries in the same category of the Warsaw Pact nations is just absurd.

[SlyHunter]

another kink in Kerry's offensive campaign strategy.
You know where he talks about how outsourcing is going to kill our economy etc. Truthfully he may be right for the average uneducated American but we are slowly switching from a manufacturing economy to a information/service economy. But even so its not as bad as he claimed.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. trade deficit narrowed in February as a combination of the weak U.S. dollar and stronger economic growth propelled both exports and imports to record levels, a government report showed on Wednesday.

The February trade gap totaled $42.1 billion, down more than 3 percent from January and slightly below analysts' pre-report expectations of $42.5 billion.

U.S. exports leapt four percent -- the highest monthly increase since October 1996 -- to a record $92.4 billion, while imports rose 1.6 percent to a record $134.5 billion.

The politically sensitive trade gap with China fell nearly 28 percent in February as imports from that country slipped to $11.3 billion, the lowest level in nearly a year, and exports to China rose 17 percent to $3.0 billion.

The lower dollar appeared to help all categories of exports, as shipments of industrial supplies and materials and autos and auto parts both set records. Exports of consumer goods were only slightly below the record set in November and exports of capital goods, such as aircraft and industrial machines, were the highest since May 2001.

Exports of services, which include travel, also set a record.

Meanwhile, the surging U.S. economy sucked in record agricultural and industrial imports, while auto and auto parts imports had their second best showing.

However, oil imports fell to their lowest level since February 2003, while average oil prices rose for the fourth consecutive month to $29.17 per barrel.

Despite the monthly improvement in the trade deficit, analysts have said it could take several quarters to see a permanent improvement, in part because the weaker dollar and production cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have driven up the cost of petroleum imports.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&u=/nm/20040414/bs_nm/economy_trade_dc_2&printer=1

[numediaman]

I think this thread has turned into the "Irrelevant Story Quoting" thread.

So, it that spirit, here is an irrelevant story quote from The Onion:

Negative Campaign Ads Blast Voters Directly

WASHINGTON, DC—In the latest round of political mudslinging, both John Kerry's and George W. Bush's election committees have replaced ads that focus on their opponents' shortcomings with ads that personally insult the voting public.

"The Bush people initiated this volley of negative ads, but we won't be lured into a reactive campaign against the Republicans," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said Monday. "It's time to redirect the cheap name-calling away from Bush and toward those Americans who might be idiotic enough to vote for him."

A controversial 30-second TV spot for Kerry that aired throughout the Midwest Monday blamed the country's ills not on Bush's policies, but on the "sheer stupidity" of America's voters.

"In the past four years, America's national debt has reached an all-time high," the ad's narrator said. "And who's responsible? You are. You're sitting there eating a big bowl of Fritos, watching TV, and getting fatter as the country goes to hell. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."

Over a series of images of America's senior citizens, the narrator of another 30-second spot says, "The Medicare drug bill is a triumph of right-wing ideology masquerading as moderate reform. The pharmaceutical-drug and insurance industries are tickled pink. Guess who's paying for it? You. Congratulations, moron. I'm John Kerry and I approved this message."

The Bush-Cheney 2004 camp recently began airing an anti-voter ad in 20 major urban areas nationwide.

"Are you going to vote for a candidate whose campaign promises would cost America $1.9 trillion over the next decade?" the ad asks. "Of course you aren't. You aren't going to vote at all. In the last election, half of you didn't even show up. So, on Nov. 2, just spend the day right there at your dead-end office job, talking to your coworkers about your new sweater and e-mailing your friends photos of your stupid 2-year-old daughter you shouldn't have had."

The ad concludes: "You make me sick."

Both ad campaigns met with cries of outrage from viewers in all demographic groups, and were therefore deemed successful.

"I don't pay my taxes so some suit in Washington can get on national television and call me a clown," said Bobbie Lee, a 35-year-old mechanic from Detroit. "Those Kerry ads piss me off so bad. So what if my teeth are stained? So what if I do wear sweatsocks? Everyone I show the videotape to gets just as mad. Just who does Kerry think he is? Before last week, I didn't even know his name."

"That Bush ad said that I should wake up to the fact that I'm trapped in a loveless marriage," said 29-year-old Kathlene Richmond, an account executive from West Virginia. "But the Republicans don't understand Larry. He's just not very communicative. You don't think the GOP is right, do you?"

[SlyHunter]

What is irrelevant showing a story proving that Kerry's crapola about how awful the economy is, is bull. And its not a fictional story but a report based on official documented statistics. But you want to overlook it as superficial while Kerry is out there telling everyone how awful it is living under Bush.

Get real. ;)

[SlyHunter]

aha

Yesterday's Boston Globe came out with a story about a growing controversy over one of Kerry's Purple Hearts. Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer, is questioning one Purple Heart. He says that Kerry was standing there with a scratch on his forearm. He was holding a piece of shrapnel. Hibbard is saying that Kerry's fellow soldiers told him that they didn't think that they had received any enemy fire. Hibbard says that he questioned John Kerry about the incident, but that Kerry was so adamant about receiving a Purple Heart for that scratch that Hibbard reluctantly dropped the matter. Kerry got his Purple Heart for a scratch on his arm, one of the three he needed to get out of any further service in Vietnam.

You do know, don't you, that John Kerry refuses to release his medical records from his Vietnam service. Those medical records would have details on all three combat injuries that Kerry reportedly suffered. We now learn that one was a scratch. What of the other two?

I remember one caller who sarcastically asked "Well, Boortz. Just how many times have you been shot?" My answer? The same number of times as John Kerry's been shot. Never.

Are we going to learn the true story of Kerry's Purple Hearts? Are we going to find out whether or not he anxiously demanded Purple Hearts for scratches and minor scrapes ... just to take care of the "three and you're out" rule? The answer is NO, not if John Kerry has anything to say about it.


The link to the actual boston Globe story
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

BTW that quote came from www.boortz.com Just because he's biased doesn't mean he's wrong.

[zimv20]

aha

The link to the actual boston Globe story
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

BTW that quote came from www.boortz.com Just because he's biased doesn't mean he's wrong.
from that article:

Thirty-three years later, that statement ["There are all kinds of atrocities..."] still rankles some veterans, apparently including those who have formed a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, which has a website devoted to what it calls Kerry's association with the "radical pro-communist" antiwar movement.

The statements of that group have been circulated widely over the Internet and picked up on conservative radio talk shows.

[SlyHunter]

Krusty: Of all the rightwingnut assholes who are posting to this newsgroup after GWB's speech, your worthless and stupid remarks are the ones that finally set me off. I am a liberal. I am also a retired Army officer. I have more ****ing time in the latrine than you, David, GOPUSA, and the rest of you rightwingnut cowards on this NG combined have in uniform. I was humping a ruck through the bush in Vietnam when your were a goddam wet dream in your Daddy's hand -- if you know who your daddy is. Let's look at a few liberals: -- John Kerry, Democract of Massachusetts. Three Purple Hearts and two Silver Stars. Of course, you wouldn't know a Purple Heart if your lard ass sat on one but I'll let you in on a secret: You don't get a Purple Heart out of a Cracker Jack box. -- Bob Kerry, Democrat from Nebraska. Lost a leg in Vietnam, awarded the Medal of Honor. How about you haul your dumbass to the Senate, buttonhole John Kerry and tell him what cowards liberals are. After he rips off your head and ****s down your throat maybe you'll learn something -- but I doubt it. It's people like you who have never had a shot fired in your direction, who have never stuffed what you could find of a 19-year-old kid into a body bag -- people like your Rush Limbaugh who sat out Vietnam with a boil on his ass, like everygoddamone of the chicken hawks in this administration, like Pat Robertson whose US Senator daddy intevened to keep him out of Korea, like GWB who hide out in the Texas air guard, like Bob Dornan who crashed three helicopters and two trainers and never saw a minute of combat yet who is a darling of fools like you -- people like you who wouldn't know courage if it were transplanted into you. Which is the only way you'll ever get any. Whoop ass? The only thing you can whip is your own needle dick.

one of the people who report that Kerry is a great guy, won all his medals and joined Veterans for Kerry. Someone copied down allot of his comments and posted them here.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/schlatter_joe.htm


Col. Schlatter, is a Vietnam veteran who was tasked from 1986 to 1995 with running the Defense Intelligence Agency Special Office for POW-MIA Affairs. Schlatter's job while heading the POW/MIA office was to correlate and interpret the hundreds of intelligence reports about living American POWs left in Southeast Asia that were pouring into the Pentagon.
Unknown at the time to the POW/MIA families, Schlatter was a closet radical leftist working a secret agenda to help normalize U.S. trade relations with Vietnam by killing on paper several hundred U.S. servicemen described in the intelligence reports as prisoners of the Vietnamese communist.
When called upon by pro-Hanoi senators John Kerry and John McCain, Schlatter eagerly joined in attempting to discredit (killing the messenger) any individual or group that got in the way of President Bill Clinton's plans to normalize trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
After Schlatter retired from the army, he moved quickly to create a "MIA Facts" web domain.
Any time information or comments pertaining to the POW/MIA issue or information critical of McCain and Kerry appear on the Internet, Col. Schlatter will jump in suggesting that the poster should visit his www.miafacts.org/ to read "the real truth" about what he calls the "POW/MIA myth." Like most of Schlatter's posts on the Internet, www.miafacts.org/ is peppered with twisted facts, lies, and distortions, pure black propaganda.

[SlyHunter]

Why isn't Kerry in jail for commiting war crimes?
Here is the proof of his crimes.
He admitted it on tape and this is his own voice.
http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3


Thanks for giving me the idea of checking that site veterans against john kerry it was very illuminating. :cool:

[pseudobrit]

Very nice job of hijacking this thread.

It was originally about the Bush administration, but you've steered it toward this Kerry nonsense by flooding (spamming) us with dribble you've cut & pasted.

[Frohickey]

Very nice job of hijacking this thread.

It was originally about the Bush administration, but you've steered it toward this Kerry nonsense by flooding (spamming) us with dribble you've cut & pasted.

Its related.

Kerry is the presumptive Democratic nominee seeking to replace the current GWBush administration, which is the subject of this thread.

[wwworry]

So if the GOP wants to bring up military records get them to finally explain where GWBush was for 6 months during his tour of duty. He did not show up. Then get them to explain how it was that lil' George skipped over 500 people in line ahead of him to get into the guard.

Bush went AWOL
Kerry fought in combat

Bush used his fathers influence to get in the guard
Kerry volunteered for combat duty

It is true that Bush was absent for 6 months of his service.

The GOP drones make up stories about fake affairs and post fake photoshoped picutures of Kerry and Fonda together. They start mudslinging when people start asking for the truth from this lying administration. So many lies for this administration....

Anyway this is part of the latest NYTimes editorial on Bush's Mercury record

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/opinion/15THU3.html)

"The mercury issue will not go away. In recent days, 45 senators and 10 attorneys general have urged Mr. Leavitt to write new and stronger rules. Senators James Jeffords of Vermont and Hillary Clinton of New York have demanded an investigation into the role industry played in drafting the existing proposals, as well as into allegations that the White House manipulated a National Academy of Sciences study in order to minimize mercury's health risks.

Mr. Leavitt can be forgiven for feeling put upon. The proposals were developed before he took the job and, as he is fond of pointing out, the Clinton administration largely ducked the issue. That does not make the administration's proposals any better. The White House boasts that its plans would achieve a 30 percent reduction in mercury emissions by power plants by 2010 and a 70 percent reduction by 2018, largely through a system that would let companies choose between reducing their own emissions or buying credits from other companies. In mercury's case, that's probably illegal, and it is certainly inappropriate. The Clean Air Act rightly requires state-of-the-art pollution controls at each individual plant for toxic substances like mercury, in part to prevent "hot spots" from developing near the plants.

There is no evidence that this approach would be prohibitively expensive, as industry claims.

On the contrary, it would force the development of cost-effective technologies, and it would certainly be better for Americans' health. Mr. Leavitt should be heading in this direction."

like I said before Clinton should have done more sooner but that does not forgive Bush for going backwards on this issue.

[SlyHunter]

So if the GOP wants to bring up military records get them to finally explain where GWBush was for 6 months during his tour of duty. He did not show up. Then get them to explain how it was that lil' George skipped over 500 people in line ahead of him to get into the guard.

Bush went AWOL
Kerry fought in combat

Bush used his fathers influence to get in the guard
Kerry volunteered for combat duty

It is true that Bush was absent for 6 months of his service.

The GOP drones make up stories about fake affairs and post fake photoshoped picutures of Kerry and Fonda together. They start mudslinging when people start asking for the truth from this lying administration. So many lies for this administration....

Anyway this is part of the latest NYTimes editorial on Bush's Mercury record

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/opinion/15THU3.html)

"The mercury issue will not go away. In recent days, 45 senators and 10 attorneys general have urged Mr. Leavitt to write new and stronger rules. Senators James Jeffords of Vermont and Hillary Clinton of New York have demanded an investigation into the role industry played in drafting the existing proposals, as well as into allegations that the White House manipulated a National Academy of Sciences study in order to minimize mercury's health risks.

Mr. Leavitt can be forgiven for feeling put upon. The proposals were developed before he took the job and, as he is fond of pointing out, the Clinton administration largely ducked the issue. That does not make the administration's proposals any better. The White House boasts that its plans would achieve a 30 percent reduction in mercury emissions by power plants by 2010 and a 70 percent reduction by 2018, largely through a system that would let companies choose between reducing their own emissions or buying credits from other companies. In mercury's case, that's probably illegal, and it is certainly inappropriate. The Clean Air Act rightly requires state-of-the-art pollution controls at each individual plant for toxic substances like mercury, in part to prevent "hot spots" from developing near the plants.

There is no evidence that this approach would be prohibitively expensive, as industry claims.

On the contrary, it would force the development of cost-effective technologies, and it would certainly be better for Americans' health. Mr. Leavitt should be heading in this direction."

like I said before Clinton should have done more sooner but that does not forgive Bush for going backwards on this issue.
Bush is not using his military record as a defense to his voting record Kerry is.
Bush did not admit before congress he committed a crime, Kerry did. The tape of his own voice doing so is linked from here either this thread or another I know cuzz I put it there.

Someone posted a picture of Kerry and Fonda that was fake on the internet. I foudn out about it when drudge reported that it was a fake. Nobody GOP posted it as being real. Whoever made it tried to make it look like the GOP did. Another photograph with Kerry and Fonda in the same audience in a peace rally was not fake. I can scronge up all three of those photos if I had to but no point in bothering.

Clinton shouldn't of made a bunch of last minute decisions that he would not have to deal with forcing Bush to have to deal with them either.

[SlyHunter]

FYI I understand this isn't instant communication but if you can get FOX they are on commercial right now they will come back and plan on interviewing someone who served with Kerry who swears he did not earn his metals. So not all who served were politically motivated to excuss his 4 months of service and back him in this election. It is now 2129 est.


edit --- there was nothing there that hasn't already been reported in the Boston Globe.

[3rdpath]

kerry can use his military record to run on because he has a distinguished military career.

bush, otoh, would employ his military record but the term " coward" doesn't play well in the swing states.

[SlyHunter]

kerry can use his military record to run on because he has a distinguished military career.

bush, otoh, would employ his military record but the term " coward" doesn't play well in the swing states.
So everyone who didn't fight in vietnam or joined the NG is a coward?
hmmm clinton skipped out too didn't he didn't hear any of the Democrats complaining about him?

I didn't say he was running on his military record, I said he was using it to defend his political record. When someone starts asking him why did he vote against this or that etc (F-16, missile program, 87 million, etc) he reply's "you can't call me anti-patriotic I served in vietnam." Thats very nice but what about your votes which they actually were asking you about. If he's going to keep bringing up vietname we have the right to know if he deserved his purple hearts, we have the right to view his military medical records to tell if he's telling the truth. Everyone demanded that Bush prove he wasn't AWOL even tho there was no proof he was. Bush did. Now let me see Kerry prove he was an honorable soldier and earned those purple hearts. Consistency and equal treatment of both candidates you going to make one prove his record make both.

[SlyHunter]

Bush and his wife had to post their taxes. Kerry and his wife filed seperatly maybe to cover up his wives contributions and who they went to? Maybe she's hiding somethign else?

TERESA FIGHTS TO KEEP HER TAX RETURNS PRIVATE

**Exclusive**

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who has called for full-disclosure of rivals' tax returns, now faces growing pressure to release his wife's records.

But in a Tax Day controversy, Teresa Heinz Kerry is personally determined to keep her returns out of public view -- at any cost!

"This is my life, my business, not John's," Mrs. Kerry recently explained to a campaign staffer, a top source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. "I think it is very important to keep the privacy zone. There is a tradition of this."

http://drudgereport.com/rc8r.htm

She bad mouths Wal-mart and then we find out she owns over 5 million in their stock. Kerry talks about outsourcing jobs but then we find out that his wife's company outsources over 70% of Heinz's production facilities. Not saying its wrong, I'm saying its hypocritical to be doing that.

[3rdpath]

So everyone who didn't fight in vietnam or joined the NG is a coward?


wow, pulling out the junior college debate techniques are we?

let's focus on the topic which is bush. he jumped line to get in. he trained in planes certain to not be used in nam. he left early to go to an ivy league school.

i'll make it simple for you...just tell me how many in the NG can leave duty early to go to yale? show me where that's an acceptable part of military policy. that will prove your point.

have at it, tiger.

[SlyHunter]

wow, pulling out the junior college debate techniques are we?

let's focus on the topic which is bush. he jumped line to get in. he trained in planes certain to not be used in nam. he left early to go to an ivy league school.

i'll make it simple for you...just tell me how many in the NG can leave duty early to go to yale? show me where that's an acceptable part of military policy. that will prove your point.

have at it, tiger.
I spent 2 years in the Florida National Guard. I have taken a weekend (ie month) off because I was sick. People took several weekends off to do important work that was unrelated to NG. The closer you got to the end of your sentence the easier it was to skip drills. The penalty was to not be paid for that drill you still got credited as far as time in service was concerned. bush did not get anything I could not have gotten. If I chose to help someone win an election and it wasn't during our month long outting in Panama they would give me several weekends off in a row (thus several months). That is just the way things work in the guard. Also my commanding officer (Captain) doesn't know what I look like and probably doesn't remember me. I've never met the battalion commander he never visited Orlando while I was in the guard and we never visited him.

[pseudobrit]

I spent 2 years in the Florida National Guard. I have taken a weekend (ie month) off because I was sick. People took several weekends off to do important work that was unrelated to NG. The closer you got to the end of your sentence the easier it was to skip drills. The penalty was to not be paid for that drill you still got credited as far as time in service was concerned. bush did not get anything I could not have gotten. If I chose to help someone win an election and it wasn't during our month long outting in Panama they would give me several weekends off in a row (thus several months). That is just the way things work in the guard. Also my commanding officer (Captain) doesn't know what I look like and probably doesn't remember me. I've never met the battalion commander he never visited Orlando while I was in the guard and we never visited him.

Was there a war and draft on while you did your service?

[SlyHunter]

Was there a war and draft on while you did your service?
During my 4 years in the army I dealt with a border incindent at the three point border (tanks lined up on border someone shot a photographer on our side of the fence and our communications shut down so we couldn't get orders). I was the communications specialist.
Ran into a few riots in Germany Yankee go home etc.
Bluffed my way thru one riot I was guarding a train they didn't believe I would shoot them did that there are more of us than you have bullets. All of my men but one somehow manage to be someplace else and not notice the people hanging out at our caboose. I fired a shot in the air. They didn't rush me and Polizi arrived and train pulled away without incident. I didn't have any bullets, only blanks I took the suppressor off and was worred they would notice that my rifle didn't recock automatically like it was suppose to when it had a real bullet in it.

In the NG which is what you were asking. I'm not sure on the order but one or so months was spent waiting to be called up as replacements for the Miami riots. I heard the town burnt to the ground. We were being trained at how to break ribs and arms without letting the news cams on copters see that we were doing it on purpose. Because a bruise doesn't stop a riot a broken arm multiplied on a few dozen people does. Then there was that little police action in panama and no I wouldn't have gotten time off during either of those events. I wasn't in that one either I just left Panama a day before they busted into the Ammo dump. I was held in reserve but never used.

However when they gave Bush time off they had already stopped shipping people over. They didn't need him for training because he was going to be outprocessing soon anyhow. They didn't need him for emergency response for the war effort because it was winding down anyhow. Also they could've called him back any time they wanted to cancelling his early leave (probably, if they didn't completly outprocess him).

[zimv20]

I didn't say he was running on his military record, I said he was using it to defend his political record. When someone starts asking him why did he vote against this or that etc (F-16, missile program, 87 million, etc) he reply's "you can't call me anti-patriotic I served in vietnam."
show me where he's done that

[pseudobrit]

During my 4 years in the army I dealt with a border incindent at the three point border (tanks lined up on border someone shot a photographer on our side of the fence and our communications shut down so we couldn't get orders). I was the communications specialist.
Ran into a few riots in Germany Yankee go home etc.
Bluffed my way thru one riot I was guarding a train they didn't believe I would shoot them did that there are more of us than you have bullets. All of my men but one somehow manage to be someplace else and not notice the people hanging out at our caboose. I fired a shot in the air. They didn't rush me and Polizi arrived and train pulled away without incident. I didn't have any bullets, only blanks I took the suppressor off and was worred they would notice that my rifle didn't recock automatically like it was suppose to when it had a real bullet in it.

In the NG which is what you were asking. I'm not sure on the order but one or so months was spent waiting to be called up as replacements for the Miami riots. I heard the town burnt to the ground. We were being trained at how to break ribs and arms without letting the news cams on copters see that we were doing it on purpose. Because a bruise doesn't stop a riot a broken arm multiplied on a few dozen people does. Then there was that little police action in panama and no I wouldn't have gotten time off during either of those events. I wasn't in that one either I just left Panama a day before they busted into the Ammo dump. I was held in reserve but never used.

However when they gave Bush time off they had already stopped shipping people over. They didn't need him for training because he was going to be outprocessing soon anyhow. They didn't need him for emergency response for the war effort because it was winding down anyhow. Also they could've called him back any time they wanted to cancelling his early leave (probably, if they didn't completly outprocess him).

I asked if there was a war or draft on while you performed your admittedly undisciplined service in the Guard. A yes or no would have sufficed. Instead you went off on another tangent and proved... I don't know what you proved.

[SlyHunter]

I asked if there was a war or draft on while you performed your admittedly undisciplined service in the Guard. A yes or no would have sufficed. Instead you went off on another tangent and proved... I don't know what you proved.
a simple no would get a reply aha from you.
The last paragraph of that reply is more to the point of what you asked about.

[SlyHunter]

show me where he's done that
I seen him and his campaign representative (I forget the proper title) do it on Hannity and colmes and on other on air shows where they ask him why did he vote against most of the weapons systems we were using? Why did he vote against the F-16 manufacturing? Why did he vote against the 87 billion? Why did he vote for a couple of hundred different military bills I'm not going thru them all and I'm sure they didn't quote them all. And time and time again I see him or his rep instead of answering the question say "you can't question my patrotism I/he served in vietname."

here is an interesting quote pulled off of the TV.

I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it.


Sorry but I don't know how to post links to tv shows or interviews that did not post a written copy of what was said on their show.


I did find this.

George W. Bush's presidential campaign told John Kerry (search) it "does not condone" any effort to impugn his patriotism but asserted that senator's voting record on national security and defense issues is a valid target of political scrutiny.

Responding Sunday to a letter in which Kerry accused President Bush of using surrogates to attack his military service in Vietnam (search) and his subsequent opposition to the war, Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign chairman Marc Racicot said, "I ask you to elevate the remarkably negative tone of your campaign and your party over the past year."

Kerry had taken umbrage at statements that Sen. Saxby Chambliss (search) made earlier, predicting trouble for the Massachusetts Democrat in Georgia's primary because of a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems."

Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said while campaigning in Georgia, one of 10 states choosing electoral delegates on March 2.

Kerry told a news conference he voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in American history, although sometimes he "voted for common sense to make changes."

In his reply letter Sunday, Racicot said, "Our campaign does not condone any effort to impugn your patriotism. Your letter claims that supporters of our campaign questioned your service and patriotism. In fact, that simply wasn't the case."

"Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on issues now facing our country," said Racicot, former governor of Montana. "Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the war on terror."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112150,00.html

[pseudobrit]

I seen him...

I seen Bush crushing puppies on C-SPAN yesterday. I did. I think it was him. I can't remember for sure, it could have been a spokesman, but everytime the puppies yelped, he kicked them again. Really.

Sorry but I don't know how to post links to tv shows or interviews that did not post a written copy of what was said on their show.

You're kidding, right? Post a link to a TV show?

What kind of wacky technology are they working on over there in PC land?

[zimv20]

Sorry but I don't know how to post links to tv shows or interviews that did not post a written copy of what was said on their show.

then you'll forgive me for not trusting your memory. find it in print.

[pseudobrit]

a simple no would get a reply aha from you.

Still practicing those psychic powers I see.

[SlyHunter]

also

The dispute began when the Bush campaign arranged a conference call with Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss as Kerry prepared to campaign in the state Saturday. Chambliss predicted Kerry would have trouble in Georgia's Democratic primary next week because of a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems."

Kerry, landing in Atlanta later that night, held a press conference in which he declared, "No one is going to question my commitment to the defense of our nation."

He also said, "I don't know what it is about what these Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040223-0709-democrats.html


Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist said Kerry's "petty, partisan insults launched solely for political gain are highly inappropriate at a time when American men and women are in harm's way." House Majority Leader Tom Delay offered this soundbite: "America before New Hampshire." And this from House Speaker Dennis Hastert: "Senator Kerry's remark, equating regime change in Iraq with regime change in the United States, is not what we need at this time."

Kerry retorted that "I don't need any lessons in patriotism" from the likes of Frist, Delay and Hastert, none of whom has served their country in uniform.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/06/Columns/Kerry_s_politics__not.shtml
Note nobody questioned his patrotism.

Another duplicate story but different source
http://truthout.org/docs_03/040603F.shtml


Kerry's critics attack his stances, not, as he claims, his patriotism

Have two leading Republicans questioned John Kerry's patriotism in recent weeks? The Kerry campaign would like you to think so, but the facts say otherwise.

In a Feb. 5 e-mail to supporters, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill falsely stated that Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie had "made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry" in a Jan. 29 speech to the RNC's winter meeting. Kerry is now trying the same tactic again. After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) criticized his record on national defense in a conference call with reporters on Saturday, Kerry wrote a letter to President Bush in which he stated, "I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8041952.htm?1c

I'm tired of doing Google searches I hope that was enough links for you?

[SlyHunter]

wierd just now on tv they reported that The Washington Post today 4/15/04 reported on page one that Tenet told 9/11 committee that he never reported anything to Bush in August and then on Page 4 stated that on August 31 he did report to Bush.

just wierd.

[SlyHunter]

John Kerry’s primary strategy for creating jobs, which is spelled out on his economic fact sheet, would be to “eliminate all of the tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and use the savings to encourage companies to create jobs in America.” This includes repealing the Bush administration’s provision that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on profits generated overseas, as well as the one cutting the corporate tax rate.

But Mr. Kerry has it exactly backwards. One reason American companies are forced to operate overseas is precisely because they are already at a competitive disadvantage due to high corporate tax rates. In short, reducing the tax burden on corporations at home would in itself discourage them from relocating.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3315.html

[Ugg]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3315.html


Hmmm, we're still waiting to hear what Kerry has to do with this thread. Just a reminder, it's not about the coming election but about whether gw is the worst ever. I think he is. He can't speak properly despite his ivy league education, he doesn't read, he wages illegitmate wars to avenge his daddy and in the process lets the bad guys get away. He is bankrupting this country and allowing it to be raped by big business. That is what this thread is about. gw and all the other presidents that preceded him. Not about who will be elected next. Do you have any comments on the thread topic or?

[Sayhey]

So everyone who didn't fight in vietnam or joined the NG is a coward?
hmmm clinton skipped out too didn't he didn't hear any of the Democrats complaining about him?

I didn't say he was running on his military record, I said he was using it to defend his political record. When someone starts asking him why did he vote against this or that etc (F-16, missile program, 87 million, etc) he reply's "you can't call me anti-patriotic I served in vietnam." Thats very nice but what about your votes which they actually were asking you about. If he's going to keep bringing up vietname we have the right to know if he deserved his purple hearts, we have the right to view his military medical records to tell if he's telling the truth. Everyone demanded that Bush prove he wasn't AWOL even tho there was no proof he was. Bush did. Now let me see Kerry prove he was an honorable soldier and earned those purple hearts. Consistency and equal treatment of both candidates you going to make one prove his record make both.

We have been over this nonsense about Kerry's voting record that Rove and friends keep putting out. Read the article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127) by Fred Kaplan and then find some other false stories to spread. As to Bush proving he was not AWOL; he has proven nothing. Garry Trudeau has been offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove they were in the Alabama unit with Bush and to this date there are no takers. Quite the contrary, his commanders say they never saw him. Kerry, on the other hand, was indeed wounded in Vietnam and I supplied you with the story of a republican Green Beret who put him up for a Silver Star for his heroism while wounded and under fire. I also supplied you with the criteria for getting the Purple Heart, which clearly shows Kerry was awarded it justifiably. You just don't read anything that shows your positions to be false. Now instead of diverting the thread, why don't you get back on topic.

[IJ Reilly]

Now instead of diverting the thread, why don't you get back on topic.

Because that's the entire point. If you can't win the debate, you blow up the hall.

[Neserk]

Yes, it is the worst ever. :D

Let's not make it the worst 2nd term ever!

[Sayhey]

Because that's the entire point. If you can't win the debate, you blow up the hall.

IJ, you wouldn't be calling are new "friend" a ... troll, would you? ;)

[3rdpath]

bush did not get anything I could not have gotten. If I chose to help someone win an election and it wasn't during our month long outting in Panama they would give me several weekends off in a row (thus several months).

so you're saying that in spite of the ongoing vietnam war, bush, as well as ANY other NG member who desired, was entitled to leave the service a full 8 months early?

yes or no?

don't write a paragraph about yourself...just answer the question.

[toontra]

IJ, you wouldn't be calling are new "friend" a ... troll, would you? ;)

I sure am. Look at his record. Joins the forum and no settling-in period to feel the tone for this guy - 200 posts in the first 2 days, all in the political forum, all strictly to the far-right agenda, many quite offensive, all intended to provoke strong reaction, and using the all-to-familiar tactics of (thankfully) past members with the same agenda.

Either this guy is a fast learner with a lot of spare, or this is a reincarnation. Either way his dedication is remarkable. Mind you, I must thank him/her for introducing me to the "ignore" list function - most useful - a sure cure for trolls!

[vwcruisn]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3315.html

haha the opening quote on that page is laughable... fiscally irresponsible huh? gee i wonder what they would say about the debt bush created. :rolleyes:

[amnesiac1984]

In the NG which is what you were asking. I'm not sure on the order but one or so months was spent waiting to be called up as replacements for the Miami riots. I heard the town burnt to the ground. We were being trained at how to break ribs and arms without letting the news cams on copters see that we were doing it on purpose. Because a bruise doesn't stop a riot a broken arm multiplied on a few dozen people does. Then there was that little police action in panama and no I wouldn't have gotten time off during either of those events. I wasn't in that one either I just left Panama a day before they busted into the Ammo dump. I was held in reserve but never used.


I'm sorry and I know that this is off topic, but that is disgusting behaviour.

In every protest it is in the governments interest for it to turn violent. It makes people less sympathetic towards the cause.

I've been in protests, some have turned into scuffles, and every time its happened it has been the fault of the police. And now I realise that they are trained to make it look like they aren't doing it on purpose. If thats the tactics you are going to use then let the rest of the world see. After all isn't this a free and open society?, you start doing things like that at and its not really any different than a brutal totalitarian government. I know its different in a riot but I still think its wrong to try and hide the true extent of what you are doing.

[wwworry]

just for the record, Kerry voted first against the $87 billion for Iraq because Bush was not providing anyway to pay for it. It went straight into the debt column. Oh, and first Bush lied about how much it would cost. Then Bush fired the person who publicly stated what the true cost would be. (similar tactics in the medicare bill, BTW).

Who is being irresponsible here? Bush wants it all but refuses to pay for it. Then he lies to us about how much it will cost.

So we have seen Bush's budget mismanagement. All true - huge budget blunders!

We have seen how Bush lies to the American people. All true - too numerous to list!

We see how his war in Afghanistan was left unfinished and Bin Laden uncaptured so he could go after Iraq. All true - Vast portions of Afghanistan are run by dubious warloards. The taliban are resurgent!

We see how his energy policies were written by the energy industry for the energy industry and at great harm to the environment.

We see how he favors corporate media conglomerates against the wishes of 97% of the American public.

We see how he uses government agencies and tax payer money to promote his campaign with questionable legality.

We saw how his administration illegally revealed the name of a CIA operative.

We saw how GOP operatives illegally broke into the democrat computer network.

We saw how little atention he paid to the terrost threat before 9/11 ammassing more vacation time than any president in recent memory (amoung other things).


It's just indefensible.

[SlyHunter]

Hmmm, we're still waiting to hear what Kerry has to do with this thread. Just a reminder, it's not about the coming election but about whether gw is the worst ever. I think he is. He can't speak properly despite his ivy league education, he doesn't read, he wages illegitmate wars to avenge his daddy and in the process lets the bad guys get away. He is bankrupting this country and allowing it to be raped by big business. That is what this thread is about. gw and all the other presidents that preceded him. Not about who will be elected next. Do you have any comments on the thread topic or?
Whether GW is the worse ever is immaterial except to get people to not vote for him therefore as an extension you need to look at the alternatives to Bush and see if they would be any better than he would be.

And no he's not the worst ever but nothing I would say would convince you and thus I don't bother trying.

[SlyHunter]

so you're saying that in spite of the ongoing vietnam war, bush, as well as ANY other NG member who desired, was entitled to leave the service a full 8 months early?

yes or no?

don't write a paragraph about yourself...just answer the question.
His commander stated the war was running down and that Pilots weren't in high demand anymore so yes if he had a viable excuss. BTW I don't think it was a full 8 months early I think he had 5 years and a little over 6 months of attendance records that he made public which would mean its slightly less than 6 months.

[SlyHunter]

just for the record, Kerry voted first against the $87 billion for Iraq because Bush was not providing anyway to pay for it. It went straight into the debt column. Oh, and first Bush lied about how much it would cost. Then Bush fired the person who publicly stated what the true cost would be. (similar tactics in the medicare bill, BTW).

ignoring the fact he also voted agains the F-16, the anti missile system and allot of other military programs that we are currently using in Iraq and that we used even in Kuwaitt way back when that made it easier to win the war.

We have seen how Bush lies to the American people. All true - too numerous to list!

I dont' see this at all.

We see how his war in Afghanistan was left unfinished and Bin Laden uncaptured so he could go after Iraq. All true - Vast portions of Afghanistan are run by dubious warloards. The taliban are resurgent!

Its impossible to just go in and fix things.
Its impossible to wave a magic wand and fix things the way you think they should be fixed.
It is irresponsible to have spent months in the mountains searching for this guy or other hold outs when we could use them elsewhere.
And what did yu think we could do with the dubious warlords kill them? Then who would be left to run Afghanistan the US. You would complain about that too as proof Bush is soooo bad.
Taliban aint surging they sent a loussy letter.

We see how his energy policies were written by the energy industry for the energy industry and at great harm to the environment.

who did you think would write it a bunch of environmentalist who don't know how to produce energy much less how to do it safely because they have to expertise at all in doing so? Energy industry has people who know how and they have people who know how to do it safely. No they are not perfect but their plans are realistic and would actually work compared to a plan created by a self important environmentalist.

We see how he favors corporate media conglomerates against the wishes of 97% of the American public.

97% I'd like to see the polls on that.

We see how he uses government agencies and tax payer money to promote his campaign with questionable legality.

You mean like the Democrats are violating their own soft money laws they forced down our throats they call campaign finance reform? Or do you mean him simply doing his job and finally giving more press meetings because everyone was complaining he wasn't doing his job by not having those meetings. This guy can't win nothing he does is to your approval. You are just looking for things wrong with the guy so you can prove he's bad you are not simply saying he's bad because he is. That is called an agenda.

We saw how his administration illegally revealed the name of a CIA operative.

I'm not sure it wasn't some democrat in his administration that did it to make him look bad. Also her own husband revealed his wives career in a interview prior to that but everyone over looks it. And now your going to deamand the link or your not going to believe me yet you can spout all this crap without providing proof and were suppose to believe you. I don't lie.

We saw how GOP operatives illegally broke into the democrat computer network.

Did you should so loudly when the Clintons used the FBI to gather information on their enemies?
Nobody "broke" into the democrat computer network. Somebody copied unsecured files out of the computer and spread them around. Might've been someone working for the Democrats you cannot expect Bush to control 100% of the people 100% of the time. Even so I don't hear you yelling about the contents of those memo's. Why is that? Are you partisan and don't care about the truth just those items that makes Bush look bad even to the point of ignoring things that makes him look good?

We saw how little atention he paid to the terrost threat before 9/11 ammassing more vacation time than any president in recent memory (amoung other things).

Presidents are never on vacation they are always working. I bet he did more quality work while he was on so called vacation than Clinton did in the Oval office particularly while getting his cigar treatments from Monica. But I don't hear you shouting and hollering about that. And before you come up with its old news I ask you truthfully did you shout and holler when it was new news? Or did you overlook it because he's a democrat?

It's just indefensible.
Yes it is for someone who simply wants to find bad things about him while ignoring everything else it would be.

[skunk]

And no he's not the worst ever but nothing I would say would convince you and thus I don't bother trying.
Nothing you have said has been remotely convincing.

[numediaman]

Nothing you have said has been remotely convincing.

Skunk, now you get an idea what it is like to live in the U.S. at this time. diehard Bush supporters see no evil and hear no evil. That is why you can expect Bush to get 45% of the vote no matter what he does, including nuking France and Germany. Its the 5% of the vote that will make all the difference.

[SlyHunter]

Nothing you have said has been remotely convincing.
The economy is up. I have never been able to make so much money in my life.
The unemployment rate is 5.7% which is higher than in any 10 year average in the past. Which is as high and higher than the entire time Clinton was in the white house.

Bush hasn't been caught in adultery. Clinton was.
Bush hasn't been caught committing perjury. Clinton was.
Bush can't be blamed for 9/11. It happened on his shift that is all. He had to pay for the consequences of 9/11 because he happened to be the one on duty in the whitehouse when it happened it did not happen because he was in the whitehouse.
Bush tried to get along with the democrats even had Kennedy author one of his bills and got everything he wanted in it that way and then Kennedy said it wasn't enough. Soudns like Arafat when he turned down Israel after they offered him 98% of what he was demanding. Apparently two people there who never understood that compromise means both people have to give in a little.
Bush stood by our allies and that includes Israel who like it or not is our official ally.
Bush didn't just go into iraq he tried for over a year to get the un for follow thru on 12 years of UN mandates before going in. He didn't go in fast enough to suit me he stalled it off over a year which could've been disasterous if Saddam had used it to actually build up his forces. And then you would've used that as an example of his bad presidency. And it was a bad decision I think because our casualties could've been much higher because he played footsy with the UN instead of doing what needed to be done.
Bush for shot time period even tried to out liberal the liberals and pass thru their own agenda against the wishes of allot of us but should've made allot of liberal democrats happy. It didn't.

No in line for the worst ever would be that appeaser Carter, That liar clinton who lied under oath in addition to all else. You know Clinton made a deal with Kerry (I don't know if this is completly true but it probably is I heard it on the radio) Clinton told Kerry he would delay the release of his book if he made his wife Kerry's VP. That is the kind of character Clinton is. Not exactly the best president. bombing aspirin factories to try to distract the press. I would say Clinton was the worst president ever.

[skunk]

Yeah. My sister lives in the States, NuMediaPerson, and she is depressed as hell. :(

[Sayhey]

Skunk, now you get an idea what it is like to live in the U.S. at this time. diehard Bush supporters see no evil and hear no evil. That is why you can expect Bush to get 45% of the vote no matter what he does, including nuking France and Germany. Its the 5% of the vote that will make all the difference.

It is the "Rushification" of America. If you shout lies long enough and wrap it all up in a pretty red, white, and blue ribbon people begin to believe them. Finally, there seems to be some people questioning the lies that are beginning to break through to be heard. Hence the drop in Bush's poll numbers.

[skunk]

No in line for the worst ever would be that appeaser Carter, That liar clinton who lied under oath in addition to all else. You know Clinton made a deal with Kerry (I don't know if this is completly true but it probably is I heard it on the radio) Clinton told Kerry he would delay the release of his book if he made his wife Kerry's VP. That is the kind of character Clinton is. Not exactly the best president. bombing aspirin factories to try to distract the press. I would say Clinton was the worst president ever.
Getting desperate, are we?

[SlyHunter]

Skunk, now you get an idea what it is like to live in the U.S. at this time. diehard Bush supporters see no evil and hear no evil. That is why you can expect Bush to get 45% of the vote no matter what he does, including nuking France and Germany. Its the 5% of the vote that will make all the difference.
I am not a die hard Bush supporter. I am a libertarian I do not like either party.
I don't like the democrats because they want to steal my money (the money from people who work for it) and give it to other people by gun point (power of government irs). They want to tell everyone how much is enough which would stifle productivity because I assure people don't get inventive and come out with great and new things because their nice people. They do it because they hope it will make them rich.

I don't like the Republicans because they want to control how I live my life. If they got too much power they would go all the way and completly outlaw everything fun including porn magazing video the works. They want to force me to live the life of their moral standards. And nobody has that right.

Problem is right now the only two parties who has a chance of winning the presidency is above. And I prefer the party who will fight terrorism to the party who would hand over our countries soveriegnity to the UN so that we would have to abide by the dictates of the UN which is over 50% lead by totalitarian dictators. I don't have to show you the proof count them up yourself. Iraq, Iran, syria, etc. I wish there was a better choice but there isn't. You apparently ignore everything bad Clinton or Kerry has done or will do simply because you don't want a republican in the whitehouse. Believe it or not while you would never vote for a republican no matter how good he was or how bad the democrats were if the democrats simply showed me they would defend me and my country and keep our country free then I would vote democrat.

BTW I have already state that I think Bush sr. belongs in jail for treason. Because he did not veto the UN constitution which invalidates the US constitution if we actually gave it the power the people in the UN wants it to be given. It gived the UN court authority over our courts. It gives their constituitonal rights prirority over our constitutional rights. And all ove those constitutional rights are subject to as long as it does not get in the UN's way. We don't have rights to protect ourselves form each other we have them to protect us from the government and the UN strips out that protection. Bush sr. number one job was protect the constitution of the US in any way shape or form he had too and in this case all he had to do was veto the durn thing. We had the right to veto it and we did not. He refused to sign it but refusing to sign it did not stop it from going into force. Yes we ignore their UN constitution. Texas ignored it when they executed prisoners who commited crimes in their state and were caught in their state. Because we did not veto it technically some could say were suppose to abide by it. The fact that Bush didn't sign it does not mean we have the right to ignore it. But we do. We should abolish it but we havn't.

[skunk]

And I prefer the party who will fight terrorism to the party who would hand over our countries soveriegnity to the UN so that we would have to abide by the dictates of the UN which is over 50% lead by totalitarian dictators. I don't have to show you the proof count them up yourself. Iraq, Iran, syria, etc.
Interesting you should put Iraq in your list. Who's in charge again?

BTW I have already state that I think Bush sr. belongs in jail for treason. Because he did not veto the UN constitution which invalidates the US constitution if we actually gave it the power the people in the UN wants it to be given. It gived the UN court authority over our courts. It gives their constituitonal rights prirority over our constitutional rights. And all ove those constitutional rights are subject to as long as it does not get in the UN's way. We don't have rights to protect ourselves form each other we have them to protect us from the government and the UN strips out that protection. Bush sr. number one job was protect the constitution of the US in any way shape or form he had too and in this case all he had to do was veto the durn thing. We had the right to veto it and we did not. He refused to sign it but refusing to sign it did not stop it from going into force. Yes we ignore their UN constitution. Texas ignored it when they executed prisoners who commited crimes in their state and were caught in their state. Because we did not veto it technically some could say were suppose to abide by it. The fact that Bush didn't sign it does not mean we have the right to ignore it. But we do. We should abolish it but we havn't.
What a load of convoluted twaddle. Snap out of it, man.

[SlyHunter]

BTW I have already state that I think Bush sr. belongs in jail for treason. Because he did not veto the UN constitution which invalidates the US constitution if we actually gave it the power the people in the UN wants it to be given. It gived the UN court authority over our courts. It gives their constituitonal rights prirority over our constitutional rights. And all ove those constitutional rights are subject to as long as it does not get in the UN's way. We don't have rights to protect ourselves form each other we have them to protect us from the government and the UN strips out that protection. Bush sr. number one job was protect the constitution of the US in any way shape or form he had too and in this case all he had to do was veto the durn thing. We had the right to veto it and we did not. He refused to sign it but refusing to sign it did not stop it from going into force. Yes we ignore their UN constitution. Texas ignored it when they executed prisoners who commited crimes in their state and were caught in their state. Because we did not veto it technically some could say were suppose to abide by it. The fact that Bush didn't sign it does not mean we have the right to ignore it. But we do. We should abolish it but we havn't.

Interesting you should put Iraq in your list. Who's in charge again?


What a load of convoluted twaddle. Snap out of it, man.

no actually its the truth. The UN constitution states it gives members rights and then puts in a pargraph with an exclusivity clause that those right may not interfere with UN policies or mandates. It also states that member nations are required to abide by the UN constittution. And Bush didn't veto it. And Bush was required to protect our constitution and in this case all he had to do was veto it. The UN constitution trumps members constitution legally and as such they can come in here and say we don't have the right of free speach (for example) if and when they have the actual military might to do so.

[skunk]

no actually its the truth. The UN constitution states it gives members rights and then puts in a pargraph with an exclusivity clause that those right may not interfere with UN policies or mandates. It also states that member nations are required to abide by the UN constittution. And Bush didn't veto it. And Bush was required to protect our constitution and in this case all he had to do was veto it. The UN constitution trumps members constitution legally and as such they can come in here and say we don't have the right of free speach (for example) if and when they have the actual military might to do so.

Every international treaty is incorporated into US Law. As such, every international treaty will automatically restrict your freedom of action. That is what treaties do. If they did not, they would not be worth much, would they?

[Sayhey]

no actually its the truth. The UN constitution states it gives members rights and then puts in a pargraph with an exclusivity clause that those right may not interfere with UN policies or mandates. It also states that member nations are required to abide by the UN constittution. And Bush didn't veto it. And Bush was required to protect our constitution and in this case all he had to do was veto it. The UN constitution trumps members constitution legally and as such they can come in here and say we don't have the right of free speach (for example) if and when they have the actual military might to do so.

Do you have any idea when the UN Charter (there is no UN constitution) was written? Bush never vetoed the charter, at least in part, because he was 40 years to late! Would you please try to fact check a few of your more outrageous claims? And just what real world example does the use of arms to invade a country on the pretext that the citizens don't have the right to free speech sound like? Perhaps modern day Iraq?

[Ugg]

no actually its the truth. The UN constitution states it gives members rights and then puts in a pargraph with an exclusivity clause that those right may not interfere with UN policies or mandates. It also states that member nations are required to abide by the UN constittution. And Bush didn't veto it. And Bush was required to protect our constitution and in this case all he had to do was veto it. The UN constitution trumps members constitution legally and as such they can come in here and say we don't have the right of free speach (for example) if and when they have the actual military might to do so.

Charter (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm) not constitution.

Chapter 1, Article 2
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII

That pretty much puts paid to your nonsensical statement that UN laws take precedence over US ones. You really need to listen to something other than faux news and rush. There is a reality out there that is not limited by their hateful and false statements.

Where did you really come from? Did a member invite you here? It's happened before.

[SlyHunter]

Do you have any idea when the UN Charter (there is no UN constitution) was written? Bush never vetoed the charter, at least in part, because he was 40 years to late! Would you please try to fact check a few of your more outrageous claims? And just what real world example does the use of arms to invade a country on the pretext that the citizens don't have the right to free speech sound like? Perhaps modern day Iraq?
I was alive watching TV when Bush Sr. talked about why he refused to sign the UN constitution and also refused to veto it. This isn't something I read as history on the computer this is somethign I watched live as it happened.

I remember him talking about how the Muslim world didn't want freedom of religion in it and his fight to get it placed in. About how it wasn't perfect and that he couldn't bring himself to sign it because of the fact that he couldn't get enough votes for it in the UN without the exclusion contained in it yet he could not veto it because then we would never get one passed and for the sake of the UN and the future he had to allow it to pass without his veto but also without his vote for it.

[Desertrat]

Hey, Sayhey, been offline for a while. My Terlingua computer's hard drive shot craps--my own fault--so I went out and got real-world work done. :)

Gotta disagree with you on the economic thing. Bush inherited a paper shell, already on the verge of collapse. The interest-rate tool had been pre-empted, which is about all there is for the Fed to work with. Budget? Well, Al Qaida was formed in 1988, which sez once again that playing catchup in war is itself a Hell--in part financial.

I'm an Old Fart against the Repubs buying my vote with the "Free Pills" thing. Pork, of course, is the only bi-partisan thing that Congress ever agrees on. Well, their own safety, of course, per stuff like the Patriot Act.

IMO, one of the worst regimes from the standpoint of the good of the nation was LBJ's Vietnam style. The SEATO agreement obligated us to go, but the way we went just really sucked. The guns'n'butter economic policies gave us--eventually--the worst inflation in the history of the 20th Century...

The worst part of the Bushies' efforts, IMO, has to do with the post-combat phase in Iraq. I think too much was overlooked as to the propaganda and disinformation capabilities of our actual foes, as well as the willingness to continue hostilities by such as cleric, al Sadr (might have erred on the name). However, while the situation is nowhere near as good as the administration would like, it's nowhere near as bad as the anti-Bushies would like to have us believe--which latter doesn't make it a Good Thing At Present.

Alternative Presidents? I don't think Gore would have done any better; nor do I think Kerry is the answer. Probably the only reason I'm predisposed to vote for Bush is that the "up to speed" time for Kerry could hurt us. Nobody walks into the Oval Office knowing everything there is to know about everything*. Okay, I'll add that he's so anti-Bush as to policy that he might take hasty actions that would have long-term harmful effects. I dunno what, exactly, but I'm of little faith...

'Rat

*Allegedly, Clinton's briefing paper for Bush made no mention of Al Qaida, in its listing of threats...

[Ugg]

I was alive watching TV when Bush Sr. talked about why he refused to sign the UN constitution and also refused to veto it. This isn't something I read as history on the computer this is somethign I watched live as it happened.

There has never been a UN Constitution. There have been many UN resolutions but never a Const. Not even a proposed Const. If you insist that it is so then perhaps you could back your claim up with a link?!?!?!

You've proven to us that your knowledge of history has some gaping holes so before you end up on everyone's ignore list perhaps you could do a little research before you post such drivel.

[skunk]

Alternative Presidents? I don't think Gore would have done any better; nor do I think Kerry is the answer. Probably the only reason I'm predisposed to vote for Bush is that the "up to speed" time for Kerry could hurt us. Nobody walks into the Oval Office knowing everything there is to know about everything*. Okay, I'll add that he's so anti-Bush as to policy that he might take hasty actions that would have long-term harmful effects. I dunno what, exactly, but I'm of little faith...

'Rat

*Allegedly, Clinton's briefing paper for Bush made no mention of Al Qaida, in its listing of threats...

Perhaps it's one of those rare occasions when the devil you don't know may be better than the one you do?

[Sayhey]

I was alive watching TV when Bush Sr. talked about why he refused to sign the UN constitution and also refused to veto it. This isn't something I read as history on the computer this is somethign I watched live as it happened.


All this tells me is that you may have a very poor memory.

As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization. my emphasis

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter)

Hey, 'Rat, welcome back. I didn't think you'd agree with me about all of my points. Glad to have an intelligent person to debate with on these issues.

[IJ Reilly]

It is the "Rushification" of America. If you shout lies long enough and wrap it all up in a pretty red, white, and blue ribbon people begin to believe them. Finally, there seems to be some people questioning the lies that are beginning to break through to be heard. Hence the drop in Bush's poll numbers.

Yup, for the last 15 years or so, we've seen the right wing work diligently at undermining any source of information about the world that doesn't contribute to sustaining the ideological echo chamber. This is why they needed to fabricate the "liberal media" myth -- so the gullible would only accept what their leaders told them. We tell you the truth, everybody else lies. It's a classic propaganda machine, really. What's apparent in our little corner of the universe is the determination of some of these soldiers of the right to insure that no serious discussion of issues of any kind takes place anywhere. Their volume control goes up to 11, and at the moment, they're using every available decibel to drown out debate and dissent. If you ask me, they are very, very worried.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I was alive watching TV when Bush Sr. talked about why he refused to sign the UN constitution and also refused to veto it. This isn't something I read as history on the computer this is somethign I watched live as it happened.

There has never been a UN Constitution. There have been many UN resolutions but never a Const. Not even a proposed Const. If you insist that it is so then perhaps you could back your claim up with a link?!?!?!

You've proven to us that your knowledge of history has some gaping holes so before you end up on everyone's ignore list perhaps you could do a little research before you post such drivel.

I'm trying I've never read about it on the internet I just remember watching Bush Sr's news conferences about it. Oh and Neal Boortz spiel on it but I can't find a link to that either probably because his system is new and updated and may not have links still in existence to older stuff. I found some related stuff.


It is well known that Saudi is a member of the UN. According to article 92 of the UN constitution, the International court of Justice (ICJ) is the main Judicial branch of the UN. The ICJ performs its duties based on a system that is part of the UN constitution and must be respected and approved by every member state. Article 94 states "Every member of the UN is to submit to the ICJ in any case in which he is a part."
http://www.islamic-state.org/saudi/un.shtml

nothing to do with this but interesting and don't want to forget I found it by accident later.

When the UN document "General and Complete Disarmament: Small Arms," was adopted August 27, 1977 the UN General Assembly admitted it was aimed at disarming the United States. When it was released, Bill Clinton was thanked for his assistance in developing this plan.
http://www.uwsa.com/issues/eternalvigilance/ev-1wgov-6-03.html


The stated goals in the Constitution of the United Nations are:
To consolidate all international agencies under the UN
To have authority to regulate transnational companies and financial institutions.
To have the power to tax all foreign exchange transactions and tax aircraft and shipping fuel.
To abolish the United States veto power on the Security Council and bolster UN authority to intervene in internal American conflicts (total loss of US sovereignty).
To establish a permanent UN standing army.
To make registration of all arms mandatory and gives the UN authority to reduce the size
of America’s armed forces and cut US military spending (total loss of US sovereignty).
To force US compliance to “Human Treaties” the Senate has not ratified.
To strengthen the International Criminal Court and make its jurisdiction compulsory.
To establish a global Environmental Protection Agency.
To create an International Environmental Court.
To create a commission to set limits on economic activity.

If the UN constitution is not a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT constitution, what is?
http://vicroberts.net/vicroberts/un.html


US Constitution vs. UN Constitution Many Americans believe that the UN is an organization based on the same principles our own country is based on. That is not true. In the US Constitution, the people are recognized as having God-given rights that are inalienable. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights prevents government from interfering with those rights. In the UN Constitution, similar rights are recognized, but they are granted by the government, not by God, and as such, the government declares the option to remove those rights when it chooses. Thus, our Constitution guarantees the rights of the people, whereas the UN Constitution does not. The difference between the two is critical to understand. The origin of our rights, as recognized in the US founding documents, is what has made America unique among the nations of the world.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:6elzLkirVa8J:216.119.97.90/downloads/Issue%25200601%2520-%2520UN%2520symbiont%2520or%2520parasite.doc++%22UN+constitution%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


In 2001 it was reported that a UN Constitution was being prepared at the University of Chicago and that it would be circulated for review by UN Member States in 2002.
http://www.uwsa.com/issues/eternalvigilance/ev-1wgov-6-03.html

I can't find a direct link that has anythign to do with Bush Sr. signing or vetoing or not doing either on the Un Constitution. The search routines keep coming up with half baked claims that the UN constitution was an invention of the Russians as a clandestine method to rule the world and other crap like that. Oh and a large portion of links to UN constitution is actually links to UN charter made as you said in 1945.

I just know what I remember when I was watching tv during Bush sr's. press conferences.

If you are in fact correct then I have been hating Bush Sr. for something he didn't actually do.

[skunk]

I found some related stuff.

Your sources are ludicrous.

[zimv20]

The economy is up. I have never been able to make so much money in my life.
what an utter load of CRAP. you already said the gas prices were killing your profitability. you don't own a couch and can barely eat. whether your relative wages have increased pales in comparison to your actual earnings. you've already attributed it to lifestyle changes, now you want to give bush credit?

maybe in real life you're a nice person. here, you're a troll.

[Desertrat]

skunk, right now I'm real heavy into "Damfino." I am not a happy camper with the way things are going under the Bushies, although in many areas I don't know what I'd have done differently had I the power. (As usual, that's an "information thing". I don't think I get as much info as a president.) However, I am not reassured by Kerry's utterances as to his future presidential acts of solution, mostly because I just don't believe he can make his notions come to pass.

I will say I'm glad the election is 6+ months away. :) That way I can keep an eye on trends and not sweat instant-gratification judgements about every little event that happens.

Overall, I guess that the next five or so years of economic "stuff" have me more concerned than are other folks. The mideast thing is a chess game of international politics and realpolitik, and will run some sort of course. If the dollar goes down as is expected, and interest rates rise as expected, there's gonna be a lot of sadness here. We've been printing money at a horrendus rate for over a decade, and at some point inflation is gonna show up, and I think bigtime. I think that as a society we're way too spoiled as to having the Good Life, and shutting down our longtime Saturday night spree will lead to a lot of social unrest. I think the existing divisiveness will get worse.

As I've said before, I don't see any governmental solutions...

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, right now I'm real heavy into "Damfino." I am not a happy camper with the way things are going under the Bushies, although in many areas I don't know what I'd have done differently had I the power.
'Rat
I imagine you'd have done a whole lot better, DR. A little common sense goes a long way.

[Ugg]

Overall, I guess that the next five or so years of economic "stuff" have me more concerned than are other folks. The mideast thing is a chess game of international politics and realpolitik, and will run some sort of course. If the dollar goes down as is expected, and interest rates rise as expected, there's gonna be a lot of sadness here. We've been printing money at a horrendus rate for over a decade, and at some point inflation is gonna show up, and I think bigtime. I think that as a society we're way too spoiled as to having the Good Life, and shutting down our longtime Saturday night spree will lead to a lot of social unrest. I think the existing divisiveness will get worse.

As I've said before, I don't see any governmental solutions...

'Rat

I think you're right, interest rates are going to rise and although a low dollar is good in the short term, in the long term it is a very, very bad thing. Unfortunately, I think the low-dollar policy of gw & co. is a means to get him re-elected and like so many political "fixes" can backfire pretty darned quick.

I disagree with you on the governmental solution thingie. The budget surplus that met gw when he came into office could have been used to shore up social security which would have had the added benefit of reducing, at least on paper, government debt. Also, the one single thing that would reduce our spending spree significantly would be to reduce our dependency upon foreign oil. By pumping all his tax goodies into renewable sources, he would have created massive amounts of new jobs IN THE USA and reduced the dollars going overseas. But we all know that this is a big oil prez like no other and he has more interest in helping out his buddies than he does in creating jobs in the US.

[Desertrat]

Well, the surplus derived from the high level of economic activity which went on during the stock market bubble. All that trading at a profit meant a lot of short-term capital gains paid in, among other tax monies. The 2000 collapse and the ensuing loss of Eight Effing Trillion dollars meant a lot of deductions...

I keep asking folks just what private-sector jobs would be created via some sort of federal effort. I get no answers. Jobs occur from a demand for products above the present staff capability of the manufacturer. How does the federal government get people to buy more widgets? The only tool I know to reduce the competitiveness of foreign producers is the tariff.

Imposing tariffs makes other countries poorer, since we don't buy their products. Folks on this board have said that poverty is a root cause of crime and terrorism. Maybeso. But if we impose tariffs, those other countries will surely blame us for their own economic malaise...

'Rat

[Don't panic]

Hi 'Rat,
welcome back. It's nice to have someone reasonable to disagree with ;)

[jefhatfield]

Hi 'Rat,
welcome back. It's nice to have someone reasonable to disagree with ;)


here here...good to see you back 'rat

we definitely had a spammer here for a while stirring things up for kicks...i think he/she is banned like ovi and others in the past ;)

[Ugg]

I keep asking folks just what private-sector jobs would be created via some sort of federal effort. I get no answers. Jobs occur from a demand for products above the present staff capability of the manufacturer. How does the federal government get people to buy more widgets? The only tool I know to reduce the competitiveness of foreign producers is the tariff.

Imposing tariffs makes other countries poorer, since we don't buy their products. Folks on this board have said that poverty is a root cause of crime and terrorism. Maybeso. But if we impose tariffs, those other countries will surely blame us for their own economic malaise...

'Rat

Protectionism has been pretty much disproven as an effective way of managing import/export imbalances. Innovation however, has almost always led to increased domestic employment. Silicon Valley and its spinoffs have made a world of difference in this country and if we continue to encourage such innovation, we can easily make up the difference in lost jobs. Alternative energy is something we can and should encourage. If we were to take advantage of all the wind power available in the US we could reduce our energy imports by 20%. Since the construction and maintenance of wind energy cannot be exported it is a guaranteed winner when it comes to jobs. If we were to take the lead in the wind technology, we could start exporting what we can't use in terms of equipment.

This is only one example but the point is that innovation is what allows us to continue to grow. Rather than pouring tons of money into oil, an old technology, why not start investing in new technologies? No government has ever failed by doing so yet this one has no interest in the future, only the past.

[Don't panic]

same goes for other energy sources: solar, bio, tidal, nuclear, cold fusion and so on. But you have to consider that oil isn't importan only for energy production. Most of the stuff our way of living depends on, is based on oil and or its by-products (just think plastics and fertilizers).
mmm.... maybe we should start a different thread on this

[numediaman]

Our British friends here may have seen this story from The Mirror, one of England's tabloids:
THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN IS MISSING

Apr 15 2004

Millions see Dubya fluff question on conflict

By Mark Ellis, Foreign Editor

PRESIDENT George Bush was laid bare to the world as a bumbling embarrassment yesterday when he couldn't think up an answer to a reporter's question.

His keynote address to the American nation, watched by millions, saw the president at his cringe-making worst.

In the glare of the live television cameras he grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath, before saying he could not think of a single mistake since the September 11 attacks.

Last night American pundits were far from impressed by the performance of their leader.

For 17-minutes all went smoothly as the president delivered a prepared statement about Iraq in only his third solo appearance before reporters at the White House.

Then came the bombshell. He was asked to name his biggest mistake since September 11.

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it," Mr Bush appeared to joke, before taking a long pause.

"Er, I'm sure historians will look back and say, 'Gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way'. I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer.. but it hadn't yet."

Even journalists familiar with the President's 'Bush-isms', a mix of misspoken words and grammatical errors, were taken aback by his latest ramblings and cast knowing glances . . .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14147825&method=full&siteid=50143

[wwworry]

I said someone in the Bush administration illegally revealed the name of a CIA operative.

Response:

I'm not sure it wasn't some democrat in his administration that did it to make him look bad. Also her own husband revealed his wives career in a interview prior to that but everyone over looks it. And now your going to deamand the link or your not going to believe me yet you can spout all this crap without providing proof and were suppose to believe you. I don't lie.


what a load of crap! I'll get to the rest later, which is also crap but not so egregious as this particular morsel.

[skunk]

Our British friends here may have seen this story from The Mirror, one of England's tabloids:
THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN IS MISSING

Apr 15 2004

Millions see Dubya fluff question on conflict

By Mark Ellis, Foreign Editor

PRESIDENT George Bush was laid bare to the world as a bumbling embarrassment yesterday when he couldn't think up an answer to a reporter's question.

His keynote address to the American nation, watched by millions, saw the president at his cringe-making worst.

In the glare of the live television cameras he grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath, before saying he could not think of a single mistake since the September 11 attacks.

Last night American pundits were far from impressed by the performance of their leader.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14147825&method=full&siteid=50143
It's being played here over and over on the news. The guy is a complete clown. You lot CAN'T let him in again. PLEASE!

[SlyHunter]

You know I was wonder if this administration is so bad who do you think Osama would want as president?
http://boortz.com/images/funny/separated_at_birth.jpg

[Desertrat]

Sorry, numediaman, but I gota agree with El Rushbo's comments on this one. Any sort of apology, any admission of any mistake, and the Kerry publicists would have put it into a campaign ad.

And I doubt Bush said "...it hadn't yet." as a mixing of tenses. In southern pronunciation, it is common for the user to pronounce the s as a d. "He wadn't doin' anything." is quite common, for instance. It's just one of those regional things, like adding an "r" by some Bostonians, as in the rather famous "Cuber".

:D, 'Rat

[numediaman]

Sorry, numediaman, but I gota agree with El Rushbo's comments on this one. Any sort of apology, any admission of any mistake, and the Kerry publicists would have put it into a campaign ad.
:D, 'Rat

Actually, I wasn't making a comment at all. I just thought some humor would be helpful. If I took everything SlyHunter seriously (or had the time to read all his posts) I'd probably cry in frustration.

Besides, The Mirror is not exactly a shining example of journalism. As far as I know they have no concrete evidence that Bush's brain is missing. Though it is possible to test their assertion.

[Sayhey]

And I doubt Bush said "...it hadn't yet." as a mixing of tenses. In southern pronunciation, it is common for the user to pronounce the s as a d. "He wadn't doin' anything." is quite common, for instance. It's just one of those regional things, like adding an "r" by some Bostonians, as in the rather famous "Cuber".
:D, 'Rat

Just a side topic, 'Rat, Bush was raised, IIRC, in New England. Dad moved the family to Texas in the mid - 60s, so why does he have such an exaggerated Texas accent. I always thought it was a put on to bolster a phony Texas macho image.

[Desertrat]

:) I've given some thought to prior presidents, and tried to figure who might have been a better person for our post-9/11 situation. My pretty-much-adult memory reaches back to Truman.

From a foreign-affairs standpoint, I'd have to guess that Nixon's crowd would have been able to do a better job, post-Afghanistan, than the present administration. I think he was more savvy about the way foreign cultures think than any of the others, and would have been more aware of the culture and psychology of the mideast. (He'd have had the same sort of economic problems, however; no brighter, there, than Carter.)

I guess maybe I'm overly-sensitive about people equating a glib tongue with high intelligence or great competence. I guess I've just known too many poorly-speaking folks who were, from the shoulders up, a double-handful of razor blades. Not saying Bush is necessarily the brightest star in the heavens, but he ain't stupid.

'Rat

[vwcruisn]

You know I was wonder if this administration is so bad who do you think Osama would want as president?
http://boortz.com/images/funny/separated_at_birth.jpg


honestly? i think hed vote for bush.

osama still has not been caught, as it seems he is not a top priortity for the bush admin (obviously, iraq is, at least for the time being).

2nd, bush has had ties with osamas family and is friends with the prince of saudi arabia, "bandar bush" as he calls him.cmon if bush evacuated your entire family by private jet on the eve of the biggest attack on american soil that YOU caused, "for their safety," wouldn't you vote for the guy? I would.

[SlyHunter]

Here's a current version of what I'm talking about when Kerry is questioned on his voting record he reverts to his own war record or his opponents lack of war record completly side stepping the actual issue. He has not once that I know of satisfactorily actually answered the questions that were asked.


Kerry, at an outdoor rally on the University of Pittsburgh campus, used an American flag and the national anthem to fire back at Republicans who charge he is weak on defense for voting against some weapons systems and an $87 billion bill to pay for operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, pointed out Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and political adviser Karl Rove did not serve in the military.


Kerry, who has tried to make his military experience a centerpiece of his campaign, is in a tight battle with Bush for the White House more than seven months before the November election.

Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said Kerry's judgment in his voting record on defense and security was in question, not his patriotism. He called the Rove and Cheney comments "outrageous."


"I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance," the Massachusetts senator said. "I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040416/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc_14&printer=1
Yes fine Mr. Kerry you served in Vietnam now explain your voting record.

[SlyHunter]

The current administration policy of getting tough and finding terrorists before they do damage isn't working. It is just not possible to throw that much money at a problem.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
The number of secret surveillance warrants sought by the FBI has increased 85 percent in the past three years, a pace that has outstripped the Justice Department's ability to process them quickly.

Even after warrants are approved, the FBI often doesn't have enough agents or other personnel with the expertise to conduct the surveillance. And the agency still is trying to build a cadre of translators who can understand conversations intercepted in such languages as Arabic, Pashto and Farsi.

The number of warrant requests has risen from 934 in 2001 to more than 1,700 in 2003, according to the FBI. The agency adopted streamlined procedures to move the requests quickly from the field offices to headquarters after the September 11 attacks.
But a report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States released this week found that the Justice Department approval process "continues to be long and slow" and that the mounting requests "are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040415-114936-5908r.htm

I fear they'll figure out a way to speed up the process that will strip our rights away. We can't successfully defend ourselves from all potential terrorist attacks without becoming a police state and throwing away our freedoms that we are fighting for. The current administration is between a rock and the terrorists.

(hmm pun between iraq and a hot place? maybe it needs more work)

[Sayhey]

Here's a current version of what I'm talking about when Kerry is questioned on his voting record he reverts to his own war record or his opponents lack of war record completly side stepping the actual issue. He has not once that I know of satisfactorily actually answered the questions that were asked.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040416/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc_14&printer=1
Yes fine Mr. Kerry you served in Vietnam now explain your voting record.

You don't seem to want to read what others post. I posted a few pages ago a article by Fred Kaplan that shows the lies put out by the RNC about Kerry's voting record. Yet you still don't want deal with the facts. If the problem is following a link here is a section of the article.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

link (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127)

Now that we are done with distorting Kerry's voting record let's deal why or why not this administration is the worst ever.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry, numediaman, but I gota agree with El Rushbo's comments on this one. Any sort of apology, any admission of any mistake, and the Kerry publicists would have put it into a campaign ad.

I'm sorry, but I find this excuse to be completely detached from reality. If Bill Clinton had admitted his personal lapses to the nation before he was forced to, he'd have been forgiven faster then you can say Monica Lewinsky. That story would have drifted to the back pages where it belonged. He allowed himself to twist in the wind, and it was precisely that smugness that got him in deeper trouble then was ever inevitable. Americans respect people who can be humble when humility is appropriate.

No, it's well understood that George Bush simply doesn't know how to do humility. It's ingrained in his personality to never think he could be wrong. In fact when he was asked this question, he couldn't even think of a way to dismiss it with a bit of humor. The entire concept of personal failings stumped him.

Some people find this part of his character comforting, though I hardly know why. I find a lack of introspection in a leader frightening, because they are likely to make the same mistakes over and over again.

[SlyHunter]

You don't seem to want to read what others post. I posted a few pages ago a article by Fred Kaplan that shows the lies put out by the RNC about Kerry's voting record. Yet you still don't want deal with the facts. If the problem is following a link here is a section of the article.



link (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127)

Now that we are done with distorting Kerry's voting record let's deal why or why not this administration is the worst ever.
In this specific case my point was that whenever they bring up Kerry's voting record he brings up the fact that he was in vietnam or that Cheney or whoever never served in the military. If you are correct about his voting record why don't Kerry simply answer the questions asked without going into spiel about how their saying he's antipatriotic when they didn't even use that word?

Also reading that quote his voting record I can see where it can be argued he voted wrong on allot of them. But that is another argument.

[pseudobrit]

You know I was wonder if this administration is so bad who do you think Osama would want as president?
http://boortz.com/images/funny/separated_at_birth.jpg

Dunno. Maybe this guy:

http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic41.jpg

http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic55.jpg

Thanks for raising the level of discussion around here with that stunningly objective stuff from the boortz site again.

[SlyHunter]

Yeah I can see all the unbiased objectivity here.

[zimv20]

why don't Kerry simply answer the questions asked without going into spiel about how their saying he's antipatriotic when they didn't even use that word?
it's been addressed, you just refuse to acknowledge it. so the problem is yours, not mr. kerry's. you've made your bloody point, we've all seen it, sayhey has done a showman's job of not only addressing your "concerns" (rather, attacks), but pointing you to the proper information.

are you planning on continuing to ignore this kind of information? are you planning on continuing to spam this forum w/ overly long and often off-topic rants from whiney bush apologists? are you planning on ever participating here in a reasonable fashion, or are you just going to keep talking at us instead of with us?