I'm changing my vote

[Bumpsis]

Re: Bush is the anti-Christ

His policy seems to be to destroy any park, wetland, species, or reserve on earth as long as it provides some benefit to one of his buddies.

I hear these types of arguments a lot. Can anyone point to specific events or policies that demonstrate this, and the corporate entities that profited as a result? Please, don't think I'm naive if this is obvious. I'm just looking for factual information to make an informed choice.
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a casual observer of the political scene, but to me the conduct of GW Bush and his administration is nothing short of corruption to the highest degree. You can't do better than buy yourself a president.
On the enviroment scene, at least few specific items come to mind:

1. Refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement (and proclaim that global warming is some sort of figment of collective liberal imagination, anti-american conspiracy and crock pot science)

2. Allowing owners of old power plants to go on polluting the enviroment far and near the source with mercury and other poisons. Many Bush appointees to key offices, including the EPA have been filled with industry lobbyists. It's no secret that oil and energy companies have been heavy monetary supporters of the current administration. Now, these people hand out paybacks to the industry. This is as filthy as any corruption seen in Mexico and other lawless dumps south of the border, except here, it's legal.

3. Allowing a 100% tax deduction to buy SUVs (6000 lb of heavier) for anyone who can claim it as a business expense. Next time you see someone in Hummer, they better thank you, the be smog belching behemoth has been paid for by you and me.
I could go on for a while, but I'm low on Zantac tonight, so I'll give it a rest.
The pattern is clear: Interests of big companies and the powerful are the only thing that matters to this admnistration.

 

[ChileMass]

The Clinton-istas didn't/couldn't ratify the Kyoto treaty either........the oil companies are that powerful, whether you are a donkey or elephant......

W is a bad joke - no doubt. But Kerry is just as beholden to special interests.....

 

[smitty77]

Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT.

Yes, he should be committed, a long time ago to an institution far away.
As for a Patriot, he's old enough to have signed the Declaration of Independence, so I'll buy that one.
Everyone wants to change the way things are done in Washington, yet they put buffoons like this into office for 4 decades. Like it or not, guys like him are part of the problem.

BTW, I'm from Mass, born and (in)bred. I can't really say I'm happy with our chosen representatives in Washington, but at least the people made the choice, as misguided as some of them are.

 

[noreaster]

I will be voting for Kerry. I support our troops in Iraq. I think those guys and gals over there are doing a great job. I am pissed off about being lied to about WMDs. Now that were over there the troops in IRAQ are doing a great job trying to bring peace.

That said there is no doubt that the USA is far worse off now then when Bush started. Unemployment is at all time high. Corporate CEOs walking around free after stealing billions of dollars. Economy is far worse. World opinion of United States is at an all time low. Health care is getting worse. Federal long term energy plans doesn't go far enough (too much big oil influence). Protection of the environment does not exist. Thanks to the patriot act our civil liberties are at an all time low.

Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911. The commander and chiefs primary job is to protect us. He failed. If he were commander of a Navy ship that got destroyed he would be fired immediately.

I think its time to give someone else a try. We need some new leaderhip in the white house. The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse than 4 more years of Bush and I would give favorable odds that Kerry and a new white house team will do a better job than the current Bush team.

 

[Greg]

I am pissed off about being lied to about WMDs.

My opinion is the world is a much better place without Saddam Hussein. He wasn't complying with UN resolutions and there is no doubt he had WMD. The bigger question is "where are they"?

Unemployment is at all time high.

Wrong. The current rate is 5.7%, far from an "all time high". In fact it's just about at the same level it was when Clinton was running for re-election in the spring of 1996. :roll:

Economy is far worse.

Bush's policies didn't go into effect until after 9/11 so in essense he inherited a downward-trending Clinton/Gore economy. The fact that the economy has recovered after such a devistating attack is pretty impressive in my opinion.

World opinion of United States is at an all time low.

I think people are becoming complacent with the threat of more terrorism. Quite frankly, I don't care what the world opinion of the U.S. is. We were attacked and one of the primary issues is continuing the fight on terrorism. I don't have any confidence Kerry could do it better.

Federal long term energy plans doesn't go far enough (too much big oil influence).

So let's look to this continent for oil. Oh yes, I forgot...the environment. Anyone who owns and drives an automobile or uses oil to heat their home shouldn't complain about this country's dependency on it.

Thanks to the patriot act our civil liberties are at an all time low.

Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.

Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911.

I very rarely share my politicial views here, but this comment is so ridiculous I felt compelled to respond. Are you saying President Bush is responsible for 9/11?

I think its time to give someone else a try. We need some new leaderhip in the white house. The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse than 4 more years of Bush and I would give favorable odds that Kerry and a new white house team will do a better job than the current Bush team.

The future stability of this country is riding on this election. Betting that Kerry won't "be any worse than Bush" is not a strong argument to not re-elect Bush.

 

[Stephen]

I think its time to give someone else a try. We need some new leaderhip in the white house. The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse than 4 more years of Bush and I would give favorable odds that Kerry and a new white house team will do a better job than the current Bush team.

The future stability of this country is riding on this election. Betting that Kerry won't "be any worse than Bush" is not a strong argument to not re-elect Bush.

I heard on the radio yesterday that the only reason Kerry can give voters for voting for him is: "Vote for Kerry, the lesser of two evils." That's essentially his entire message.

I look at messages like noreaster's and laugh. Weren't conservatives once accused of being unable to think for themselves? And yet every liberal argument is based on vitriole and sound bites.

"lied to about WMDs": If this is true, then you can't vote for Kerry... he said they were there too.

"Economy is far worse"- and how have you personally suffered in this economy? I see you are still affording ski tix...
EDIT, and I see that this just came out today: Retail Sales Up 1.8% in March

"World opinion"- it's not hatred... it's jealousy!

"Health care is getting worse"- while the average age of death increases.

"Energy plans"- and when was the last time you had an outage due to lack of supply (as opposed to weather or a faulty switch)?

"Protection of the environment non-existent"- tell that to my brother who can't cut down the trees in his yard because he abuts a protected area.

'Civil liberties are at an all time low"- and there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil for almost 3 years. And they've tried. How many times has the govermnet subpoenaed library books... NONE. How many times has Democrat prosectors violated Florida law by absconding medical records without following proper filings as required by Florida law? TWICE. Another thing, you critisize Bush (see below) because 9/11 happened on his watch, then complain about the fact the administration is protecting you from future attacks by watching other people (I doubt you make the short list for terrorism alerts) more closely. So which do you want, government protection, or government laissez-faire? Which do you think ultimately results in the higher quality of life?

"1000s died under George Bush's watch"- thanks to the Clinton holdovers in the administration. The only thing I fault Bush for is not wiping the city clean of the holdover scum hacks, like he had to do in the Oval Office (ok, that was a little vitriolic, but hey, Clinton was a slob).

"He failed"- To quote Dr. Rice: "We have to get it right 100% of the time, they only need to succeed once." The biggest event that allowed September 11 to happen was the great Patriot Ted Kennedy in the 60's opening up our borders wider than a whore's legs (ugly picture, but I feel that repulsed by the destruction of our country at the invitation of the Democrats).

"Kerry will do a better job"- Forget the hype, look at the voting record. Just what in his voting record gives you any confidence that Kerry would be any better at national defense? His record is so bad, that they say he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (one of Clinton's pet projects) simply because it had the word Defense in it.

-Stephen

 

[Jaytrek57]

Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.

Dangerous. What happens when some of those liberties, in your eyes, do not concern the "fight on terrorism", but the government thinks they do? Again...IMHO...dangerous.

I voted for Bush the first time. I will not this time around. His “joking” at a press dinner a few weeks ago about not being able to find WMD did it for me…complete with pictures of him looking under desks in the oval office. Inappropriate IMHO. There are other issues that concern me as well…but again this seal the deal.

As a former military person, I will always support the troops. However, the troops are not soldiering now in Iraq…they are policing…and that is a huge difference IMHO.

 

[Greg]

Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.

Dangerous. What happens when some of those liberties, in your eyes, do not concern the "fight on terrorism", but the government thinks they do? Again...IMHO...dangerous.

I partially agree. However, in terms of protecting us from terrorism, what is the alternative?

 

[jjmcgo]

Good observation, Jaytrek, on the difference between a military operation and a policing job.

As for presidential impact on the environment, it looks like it comes down to which Yale-educated Boston Brahmin, living off his ancestors' rape of the land beginning 100-200 years ago, will be better.
They both look like they'd like to convert any wilderness mountain for a ski resort.
The Democrats talk big on the environment but as another poster noted, Clinton didn't sign Kyoto either and there were some incredible logging contracts given out during his term. I remember a Japanese company got a subsidized deal in which the return to the U.S. was less than the cost of the labor to cut the trees.
Our politicians are heavily compromised before they ever near the national stage. Expect no great practical change. Both parties will cut services and raise fees. Both will send logging rights on public land. Both will offer tax advantages to their supporters.

"The art of politics is getting money from the rich and votes from the poor under the guise of protecting one from the other." -- Oscar Wilde

 

[smitty77]

Federal long term energy plans doesn't go far enough (too much big oil influence).

This may be so, but ask John Kerry how he would go about solving this. He's a big champoin for reducing our dependency on oil, but your everyday automobile is not the problem. I work for a liquid asphalt supplier (the oil they use to make blacktop) and if you knew how much we consume in diesel for the transport units you would crap a gold brick. Trucking and electricity production is where the dependency comes from, mostly for industrial services that the public demands. And the US doesn't just import fuel. Liquid asphalt is the "bottom of the oil barrel" so to speak. Basically a very lightly refined crude oil. Every time you want a road paved the liquid comes from overseas. Some quick math gives the following:
2000 tons of mix per mile for a two lane road
110 tons of which is liquid asphalt. The rest is rocks and sand.
This translates to approximately 27,500 gallons of liquid asphalt PER MILE. This is four truck tanker loads that needs to be trucked from a seaside refinery/storage yard halfway across New England. During the summer, most asphalt plants go through at least double this amount every day.

Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911.

Actually, your good friend Clinton was fortunate enough it didn't happen under his. The same nuts tried to topple the same buildings in '93, only they didn't use enough bang. Why didn't he do something for another 7 YEARS?!?!?!?!?! I would say Clinton is responsible for this mess, if we're pointing fingers.

The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse...

Actually, the odds are Kerry can be much worse as he hasn't solidly held any position on any issue in this campaign. The man doesn't know if he's coming or going.

I'd blow some more holes in your expert analysis of the sate of the union, but I must get back to work.
Smitty

 

[Jaytrek57]

I partially agree. However, in terms of protecting us from terrorism, what is the alternative?

Wish I had the magic answer for that Greg. I think vigilance and trusting in our (USA) form of government, our way of life, is essential. Also putting teeth to EXISTING laws is critical.

Logically prioritizing perhaps? Example, Are you more likely to be killed by a handgun wielded by an American or terrorist act committed by a foreigner? Who can say…but statistics would support the first.

If at the end of this year you were to read that 10,000+ Americans were killed by terrorist actions I think we all would be outraged and justifiably so. Yet in this country, every year, we lose that number and more to handgun violence…where’s the outrage? Where’s the calling of civil liberties to be suspended?

Not to compare one form of death to the other…just the way we as Americans…”prioritize” those deaths.

Sorry to rant…I don’t mean to. I support a person’s right to defend themselves…I just use this as an example.

God I need coffee!!!

 

[noreaster]

Most of you are as opinionated as I am. I like that. I may not agree with it but I like it. I feel honored that Greg the Forum Founder chose to pick my opinions apart line by line. I still haven’t changed my opinion but I do feel honored.

I will end with one more comment. If you have read anything at all about the Patriot Act and feel that it is 100 percent justified, then I maintain you don’t have a lot of respect for all the freedoms Americans have been fighting for the past 200+ years. That is very sad indeed.

 

[SilentCal]

Niether Bush nor Kerry really impress me. But I believe Bush was classless when he was joking around about WMD. You should never joke about something in which soldiers are dying trying to justify. True Saddam needed to be ousted for what he had done but I fear we have been drawn into something we will not be getting out of very easily. Do you really think this handover of Power on June 30th will start anything positive? Don't we learn from our past mistakes? Wasn't there another placed called Vietnam that we fumbled the ball in. I think our #1 goal from September 11th should have been to capture or kill Bin Laden and destroy the Al-Quada network. These were the people who directly plotted and killed Americans. Clinton and Bush are both to blame and we need to pull our heads out of our rears and quit fighting amongst ourselves. Will either candidate do this? Unlikely, in my eyes.


Can't we all just vote for Free Beer :beer: [/quote]

 

[noreaster]

In case your wondering I consider my views just to the right of center. I use to be a Republican but they have gone way to far to the right and just don't care about the people in the middle. Most Democrats are way to far to the left. So what is a middle person like me to do. A Democrat president and republican senate/house of rep sounds like the best mix to me. The other way around is my 2nd choice. An all Republican controlled government is just way to much big corporate control. An all democrat controlled government also has its problems.

Look I told you my opinion. I don’t expect you to agree with it. You have to forum your own opinions. I will recommend you read more, listen to National Public Radio on the way to work, and listen to the other side on conservative talk radio stations. Look around and talk to people you don’t know. Listening to the news on TV is becoming more and more a complete waste of time. TV news spends to much time on stuff I just don’t think are very important in the grand scheme of things. Why doesn’t TV news talk about the fact the Patriot Act has now made it legal for the Federal government to take an American citizen (possibly your child or parent), lock them away for years with no access to a lawyer, legal system, or there relatives. There is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Its now the law. I am sorry this is not the America I grew up with or my anestors grew up with. Another interesting question you may want to research is why are Public Librarians concerned with the Patriot Act. Another, find out how many copies of the Patriot Act were distributed when congress was asked to vote on it.

I think everyone should be knowledgeable about political issues that have a BIG impact on future generations (our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, ….) . Patriot Act is one example that will have a big impact on future generations. Energy plan is another. Are these the only ones? Absolutely not. This information can be found on the internet .gov sites with google.com. Look I am no expert on this stuff but I have at least read about these topics. Please read before you vote.

 

[Stephen]

(1)Why doesn’t TV news talk about the fact the Patriot Act has now made it legal for the Federal government to take an American citizen (possibly your child or parent), lock them away for years with no access to a lawyer, legal system, or there relatives. There is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Its now the law.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act authorize detention of people as enemy combatants?
A: No. Enemy combatant status, which essentially permits detention of enemy soldiers during hostilities, as opposed to detention under the criminal justice system, pre-dates 9/11, and was approved by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatant status was used to detain a U.S. citizen who attempted sabotage during World War II. Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act addresses enemy combatants.

(2)Another interesting question you may want to research is why are Public Librarians concerned with the Patriot Act.

Q: Is the government using the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act to compile watch lists based the books ordinary citizens check out of the library?
A: No. Section 215 permits the government to obtain "tangible things" from third parties in foreign intelligence investigations. Although the USA PATRIOT Act does not mention libraries, this section could be applied to library records as business records. Under previous law, government agents had the ability to access business records, including library records, with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases. Section 215 now allows such requests in foreign intelligence cases. An important protection provides that Section 215 may not be used against U.S. persons (citizens or permanent resident aliens) solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment. In practice, these requests are made only as to specific individuals who are already the target of an investigation. This provision includes a safeguard that provides that government agents must seek a court order for the records, based on a certification from a high-ranking FBI official (Assistant Special Agent in Charge or higher) that the records sought are for "an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." An additional safeguard requires the Department of Justice to report its use of this provision to Congress every six months.

(3)Another, find out how many copies of the Patriot Act were distributed when congress was asked to vote on it.

Couldn't find anything in Google on this one.

A couple others thrown in for good measure:

Q: Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional?
A: No provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been held unconstitutional by any court in the country.

Q: What are some of the reasons critics oppose the USA PATRIOT Act?
A: First, the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have become a short-hand label for all aspects of the war on terrorism. Critics have incorrectly attributed to the USA PATRIOT Act a number of anti-terrorism initiatives that have nothing to do with the Act. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act does not address such issues as enemy combatants, military tribunals, closed immigration hearings, or monitoring of attorney-client communications. A number of newspapers nationally and within the Eastern District of Michigan recently reported on claims of civil rights abuses by government employees, but incorrectly attributed the abuses to the USA PATRIOT Act. In fact, the report was required by one of the USA PATRIOT Act's many safeguards. Section 1001 directs the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") to process and investigate complaints alleging abuses of civil rights by Department of Justice employees. The USA PATRIOT Act is not the basis of the complaints cited in the OIG report; it is the mechanism for investigating the complaints.

Second, it seems that many critics are unaware of the investigative tools that were available to law enforcement before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. Instead, they incorrectly assume that these tools were created by the USA PATRIOT Act. For example, roving wiretaps were permissible in criminal cases before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this tool to foreign intelligence cases. Similarly, investigators were able to obtain library records with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases long before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this ability to foreign intelligence cases, and added some protections, such requiring a court order, prohibiting the investigation of a U.S. person based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment, and requiring the government to report the use of this provision to Congress. As another example, the foreign intelligence surveillance court was not, as is sometimes assumed, created by the USA PATRIOT Act; it has existed since 1978. Moreover, the court was created to prevent government wiretap abuses by creating judicial oversight in foreign intelligence cases.

These inaccuracies and false assumptions perpetuate the myth that the USA PATRIOT Act violates constitutional rights. Instead, it provides tools to assist law enforcement in combating terrorism, while preserving the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting.



All Q/As from the EDMI Counter Terrorism page

 

[Stephen]

Stephen, I was quoting Noreaster with those 3 questions. I do appreciate you answering those claims. I would still like to hear from noreaster answering about those three statements.

Doh!

For future clarity, just how do I use the quotation feature?????? I have tried several times and seem only to quote the entire post.

Here is how the above message looks:

[quote="uphillklimber"]Stephen, I was quoting Noreaster with those 3 questions. I do appreciate you answering those claims. I would still like to hear from noreaster answering about those three statements.[/quote]

Doh!

[quote="uphillklimber"]For future clarity, just how do I use the quotation feature?????? I have tried several times and seem only to quote the entire post.[/quote]

When you hit quote, it quotes the whole message by default. If you want to add comments in between quotes, then add the quote tags to each section.

-Stephen

 

[skican]

If Tim McVeigh were my kid I would have wished the government to lock him away before he killed all those innocent people. :evil:
We did not have the threat of terrorism when we were kids like we have now. The world changed on 9/11. I think we are all aware of that I... like everyone else here in the US hopes that will never happen again.
What are your suggestions for change Noreaster? What would you do if you were president?
I am just thankful that I was born in this country and I am proud of my president and yes, I do have family serving in Iraq! You could always move to Canada if you don't like it here or run for office and make a difference. If you can....
Think I am going to log off and go drink to my country. A martini sounds nice right now cause I have had it with politics for the day. Hope Greg is having a good time. Wish I were there with him jammin. :beer:

Proud American!

 

[Stephen]

I'm going to celebrate this great country by geocaching tonight and most of tomorrow as well! Gonna enjoy God's creation while the wife and kids are away!

-Stephen

 

[noreaster]

Stephan, excellent post. I truly enjoyed reading your post. Great job. I mean that.

Stephan's comment
Q: Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional?
A: No provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been held unconstitutional by any court in the country.

This is definitly true. It is also true this is not proof one way or the other. Its too early to tell if the Patriot Act is or is not unconstitutional. There are many different views on this subject and the jury hasn’t even been picked. The fact that there virtually no debate when the Patriot Act was passed means it may not stand the test of time.

Since Stephan posted some of the view from the right I will post some views from the left. Like I said my personal views are in the middle. Are the views from the radical right correct? Are the views from the radical left correct. Or is it possible the truth lies somewhere in-between, which means you must formulate your own opinion. The truth is out there. The great thing about our country is we all get to decide.

BTW My ancestors imigrated to the Americas in the 1630s from England. I have a great deal of respect for the millions of people that gave there lives to give us all the right to debate and vote.

Another view point on Patriot Act -----

Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every American.
The ____ and many allies on the left and right believe that before giving law enforcement new powers, Congress must first re-examine provisions of the first PATRIOT Act to ensure that is in alignment with key constitutional protections.

Source -->
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

 

[Bumpsis]

uphillclimber, why don't you ask ACLU?
From the tone of your comment it looks like you have a problem with the varacity of their statement in regards to the Patriot Act.

And in case you doubt that the feds can now (due to Patriot Act) throw a US citizen in jail and deny him his legal rights just look as to what originally happened to Jose Padilla. Just keep in mind that what he did or intended to do is a separate matter from that of having been stripped of his legal rights.