|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2004 10:44:50 AM · #226 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I do, however, take exception to your use of the phrases "dishonesty about tours of duty" and "reductions of medical coverages, etc".
1) There was no dishonesty about tours of duty - when one "signs on the dotted line" to join our all-volunteer military, one acknowledges that he/she has read the contract and agrees to be bound by it. |
I disagree. While what the Pentagon has done to our soldiers is possibly *legal* - once you sign on the line, they basically have your ass for sure, it is certainly deplorable and , for many if not most, quite *dishonest*.
These soldiers and reservists were promised one thing about their tours, and then the Pentagon reneged. More than once. Kinda like Gilligans Island, except it's not funny.
And, tragically, it is just another black pearl in a string of digraceful behavior toward our armed forces by a uncaring administration. :(
Originally posted by RonB:
2) While there have, in fact, been reductions in medical coverages, they were not enacted by the Bush administration - they are imposed by an Act of Congress. As I rebutted that same aclaim in another post: |
Ron
Yes, I remember - you rebutted it with me. I recall winning that one too! :D
My response today, in a nutshell: Horsefeathers!! :D
Blaming Congress is a game of Three card Monte.
The Congress, of course, is Republican controlled - both houses. The Republicans - and i admire their reptilians hearts for this, believe it or not - march in near-perfect lock-step with each other and the the White House. ( see, I didn't say " goose-step". Happy Wednesday! :D )
What Bush wants, he gets. There is no blaming Congress. All these reductions and assorted nastiness we spoke of earlier, and some of which I redug up, were initiated by Bush - the buck stops there. And seriously, I know that you know it as well.
Anyway, just in case someone else is actually reading this tripe and still thinks Bush actually cares about Veterans, here are some, just some, of the more vainglorious actions he has taken against the men and women who had more courage than he ever demonstrated:
Bush VA Spending Fails To Grow With Health Care Costs
Despite Bush's claims, "the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans' health care is 5.4 percent -- hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA's health care budget just to maintain the status quo." [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]
Veterans Forced To Wait Months For Initial Visits to VA Doctors
At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."
The "Independent Budget," an analysis of the VA budget provided by veterans groups, has said "The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system is in critical condition." Meanwhile, the Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care. [Air Force Magazine, 10/02; //www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/IB_04excsum.pdf; OMB Director Joshua Bolton to Rep. David Obey (D-WI), 10/21/03]
Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:
Canandaigua, N.Y. ;Pittsburgh ;Lexington,Ky.;Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.; Livermore, Calif.; Waco, Tex.
Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]
In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]
Bush Proposed Doubling Costs Of Prescription Drugs For Veterans
This year Bush proposed increasing prescription drugs costs for veterans. The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000. On July 21, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee increases and recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Reuters, 7/14/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03]
Bush Decided To Cut Benefits For Middle-Income Veterans
On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it would cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans due to budget constraints. John Pettyjohn, an Oklahoma veteran who served in Vietnam, said of the cuts, "On one hand, we're sending our sons and daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the other hand we're punishing a certain class of veterans who've made money in their lives. The government made a promise to us. What they're doing now is wrong." [Associated Press, 1/16/03; The Daily Oklahoman, 1/18/03]
Pentagon Planned To Cut Pay Of Troops Serving In Iraq And Afghanistan
On April 2, 2003, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to increase pay for soldiers in "imminent danger" areas by 50 percent. Pay for families of active-duty troops was increased 150 percent. The increase was the first to imminent-danger pay since the first Gulf War, and the first to families since 1997. The increases were temporary, and set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. Bush's Defense Department effectively decided "to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat" by opposing renewal of the pay raises.
After criticism from Democrats, the Pentagon announced that current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be cut, but such efforts may come at the expense of troops serving elsewhere. [Knight-Ridder, 4/5/03; Los Angeles Times, 4/3/03; CQ, 4/16/03; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03; Army Times, 8/13/03; 8/20/03]
Bush Budget Cut Millions From Education Funds For Military Children
Bush's 2004 budget cut $200 million from Impact Aid, a program that helps military children receive a quality education. The military portion of Impact Aid would fall in Bush's budget from $635 to $435 million. Bush tried to cut $3 million from Impact Aid in 2003 as well. [House Appropriations Committee, Minority Staff, 6/17/03, 6/16/03; Washington Post, 6/17/03; Omaha World Herald, 2/5/02; State News Service, 2/4/02]
Bush's Tax Cut For The Wealthy Excluded Military Families
Bush's 2004 tax cut failed to extend a child tax credit to 200,000 low-income military families. Soldiers whose "with taxable incomes below $26,625 are ineligible for the increase in the maximum child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 that was part of a tax bill signed into law in May." Among those whose families are left out of the Bush tax cut are soldiers serving in combat zones. [Washington Post, 6/17/03; Army Times, 8/11/03]
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 11:41:14 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Hey, don't despair... as far as I can tell, all Ron does is deploy a series of lawyerly tricks to entangle arguments and distract; all the while, not touching on the substance of what's presented. In stead, as he did with the 38 points cheat-sheet, he completely over kills and comes across like Les Miserables' Inspector Javert: ever ready to go no further than the "letter" of the text, rather than get entangled with the "spirit" of what's meant. |
Hmmm. Funny that you choose to qualify the word "tricks" with "lawyerly", since one of the greatest supporters of the Democratic Party is the American Trial Lawyers Association. You don't suppose that that has anything to do with the fact that the left-leaning, liberal media employs so many tricks to slant "news" articles toward the left, do you? Also, one would think that the professional journalists that work for the left-leaning media could find editors from amongst all those lawyers to help them compose "news" articles that could not be so easily dismantled by someone who didn't even attend college.
You accuse ME of distraction, when, in reality, the distraction, as I have demonstrated over and over again, is with the media slant. It is THEY, and a few other posters to this board, who choose verbiage that is not only distracting, but is INTENDED to distract. They use words that are INTENDED to be laden with negative connotations rather than report facts. They present headlines saying things like BUSH LEAK ALLOWED TERRORIST TO ESCAPE, when the fact of the matter is that 1) BUSH had nothing to do with it, 2) there was no LEAK - it was a press background briefing, and 3) the revelation of the informant's name in the briefing didn't allow any terrorist to escape - it was the PUBLICATION of the informant's name BY THE MEDIA that tipped off the terrorists who escaped. And the only reason that the background briefing was held in the first place is because the administration was pressured BY THE ( liberal ) MEDIA to support their reason for raising the terror alert in NY, NJ, and DC. If not for that pressure, the briefing would not have occurred. It is the MEDIA who, in their rush to sell newspapers, "blew the cover" not only of Khan, but also of Plame, and others. It is THEY who should be taken to task.
I'm well aware of the "spirit" of what's meant - it's meant to promote Kerry and undermine Bush ( Oh, and to sell newspapers to the liberals - 'cause they buy that horsesh** by the truckload ).
How to keep a liberal uninformed? Take away his N.Y. Times.
How to keep a liberal MISinformed? Give it back.
Ron |
Yes, I see what you mean, Ron...kinda the same way the left- leaning press pressured Cheney into informing the media and public about his energy task force meetings (sarcasm, of course)...or the way the left-leaning press has forced the Bush administration to release the names and whereabouts of the secretly detained Arab-Americans who are not charged with any crimes...or the way the left-leaning press has pryed loose the presidential papers of Ron Reagan and Bush I from executive order issued by Dubya to prevent those being released to the press, historians and general public.
I'm sure there are other examples of the lack of transparency by the Bush administration. Point being that the Bushites don't release any information they don't want to.
Even the Pakistanis and British are blaming the Bush administration for outing the name of the Pakistani double agent who was providing a lot of key information about al Qaeda members in Britain and the US. I think that we can only conclude that Bush and his henchmen are bungling the war on terror for political gain. They did it with Valerie Plame and they did it here as well. (my opinion)
What's your point about the American Trial Lawyers Association support of the Democratic party? I don't get it. I mean, lawyers abound in the Bush administration too. Not to mention all of the special interest groups and multinational corporations who've given large sums of money to the Bushites.
By the way...which of the left-leaning media (according to you) were against the war in Iraq? I don't think any. The NY Times certainly weren't, but eventually they admitted, on back pages, admissions that they were wrong in publishing certain articles about the supposed threat that Iraq posed. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 12:37:01 PM · #228 |
| As said by Bill Mayer, "the press handles the president with kid gloves". That is why movies like F911 have to come out. Thank you Michael Moore, even though youâre a scruffy fat bastard :) |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 12:40:10 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm well aware of the "spirit" of what's meant - it's meant to promote Kerry and undermine Bush ( Oh, and to sell newspapers to the liberals - 'cause they buy that horsesh** by the truckload ).
How to keep a liberal uninformed? Take away his N.Y. Times.
How to keep a liberal MISinformed? Give it back.
Ron |
If that is true, if papers are more liberal because of demand, maybe its because most republicans dont read the paper... Mr. Bush dosnt. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 01:27:13 PM · #230 |
Forgive me the long post. I wanted to respond, as usual, point by belabored point.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
I do, however, take exception to your use of the phrases "dishonesty about tours of duty" and "reductions of medical coverages, etc".
1) There was no dishonesty about tours of duty - when one "signs on the dotted line" to join our all-volunteer military, one acknowledges that he/she has read the contract and agrees to be bound by it. |
I disagree. While what the Pentagon has done to our soldiers is possibly *legal* - once you sign on the line, they basically have your ass for sure, it is certainly deplorable and , for many if not most, quite *dishonest*.
These soldiers and reservists were promised one thing about their tours, and then the Pentagon reneged. More than once. Kinda like Gilligans Island, except it's not funny.
And, tragically, it is just another black pearl in a string of digraceful behavior toward our armed forces by a uncaring administration. :(
Originally posted by RonB:
2) While there have, in fact, been reductions in medical coverages, they were not enacted by the Bush administration - they are imposed by an Act of Congress. As I rebutted that same aclaim in another post: |
Ron
Yes, I remember - you rebutted it with me. I recall winning that one too! :D
My response today, in a nutshell: Horsefeathers!! :D
Blaming Congress is a game of Three card Monte. |
So is blaming Bush.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
The Congress, of course, is Republican controlled - both houses. The Republicans - and i admire their reptilians hearts for this, believe it or not - march in near-perfect lock-step with each other and the the White House. ( see, I didn't say " goose-step". Happy Wednesday! :D )
What Bush wants, he gets. There is no blaming Congress. |
You know very well that that is not true. If it WERE true, then why aren't Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Charles Pickering sitting on the federal bench?
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
All these reductions and assorted nastiness we spoke of earlier, and some of which I redug up, were initiated by Bush - the buck stops there. And seriously, I know that you know it as well. |
Another statement that is not true. The Act that puts funding under Congressional control was not hatched during the Bush administration.
Originally posted by Gngerbaker:
Anyway, just in case someone else is actually reading this tripe and still thinks Bush actually cares about Veterans, here are some, just some, of the more vainglorious actions he has taken against the men and women who had more courage than he ever demonstrated:
Bush VA Spending Fails To Grow With Health Care Costs
Despite Bush's claims, "the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans' health care is 5.4 percent -- hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA's health care budget just to maintain the status quo." [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]
Veterans Forced To Wait Months For Initial Visits to VA Doctors
At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."
The "Independent Budget," an analysis of the VA budget provided by veterans groups, has said "The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system is in critical condition." Meanwhile, the Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care. [Air Force Magazine, 10/02; //www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/IB_04excsum.pdf; OMB Director Joshua Bolton to Rep. David Obey (D-WI), 10/21/03]
Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:
Canandaigua, N.Y. ;Pittsburgh ;Lexington,Ky.;Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.; Livermore, Calif.; Waco, Tex.
Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]
In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]
Bush Proposed Doubling Costs Of Prescription Drugs For Veterans
This year Bush proposed increasing prescription drugs costs for veterans. The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000. On July 21, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee increases and recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Reuters, 7/14/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03]
Bush Decided To Cut Benefits For Middle-Income Veterans
On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it would cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans due to budget constraints. John Pettyjohn, an Oklahoma veteran who served in Vietnam, said of the cuts, "On one hand, we're sending our sons and daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the other hand we're punishing a certain class of veterans who've made money in their lives. The government made a promise to us. What they're doing now is wrong." [Associated Press, 1/16/03; The Daily Oklahoman, 1/18/03] |
Well, my response to ALL of the above smears on the Bush administration is this:
Rep. Christopher Smith, REPUBLICAN-NJ, introduced H.R. 2475, the Veterans Health Care Full Funding Act, on 6/16/2003. It was co-sponsored by 46 other Representatives. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill is described as follows:
"H.R. 2475 would establish the Veterans Health Care Funding Review Board, which would consist of three people with backgrounds and experience in health care policy or related fields who would be appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA). This board would be responsible for determining the resources necessary to adequately fund health care programs for veterans, under criteria listed in the bill. The board would submit its recommendations to the President and to the Congress. Under the bill, the President would be required to include the full amount determined by the board in his annual budget request to the Congress. In addition, the bill would authorize the appropriation of up to $2 million in 2004 to pay for the board's expenses. For future years, the board's expenses would be paid from amounts available for veterans' health care. Finally, H.R. 2475 would establish access-to-care standards for how long veterans should wait after making an appointment before the veterans actually have a visit with a doctor."
So, the legislation is there, introduced during the BUSH administration, by a REPUBLICAN but it is languishing in-committee. For what it's worth, the committee ( Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health ) is comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Their names are:
Rob Simmons (R-CT) Chairman
Jerry Moran (R-KS) Vice Chairman
Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) Ranking Member
Richard Baker (R-LA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Vic Snyder (D-AR)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Ted Strickland (D-OH)
Jeb Bradley (R-NH)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Bob Beauprez (R-CO)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Darlene Hooley (D-OR)
Tim Murphy (R-PA)
Perhaps THEY should be held accountable for not acting on this piece of legislation since the bill was referred to them in JULY of 2003.
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Pentagon Planned To Cut Pay Of Troops Serving In Iraq And Afghanistan
On April 2, 2003, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to increase pay for soldiers in "imminent danger" areas by 50 percent. Pay for families of active-duty troops was increased 150 percent. The increase was the first to imminent-danger pay since the first Gulf War, and the first to families since 1997. The increases were temporary, and set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. Bush's Defense Department effectively decided "to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat" by opposing renewal of the pay raises.
After criticism from Democrats, the Pentagon announced that current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be cut, but such efforts may come at the expense of troops serving elsewhere. [Knight-Ridder, 4/5/03; Los Angeles Times, 4/3/03; CQ, 4/16/03; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03; Army Times, 8/13/03; 8/20/03]
Bush Budget Cut Millions From Education Funds For Military Children
Bush's 2004 budget cut $200 million from Impact Aid, a program that helps military children receive a quality education. The military portion of Impact Aid would fall in Bush's budget from $635 to $435 million. Bush tried to cut $3 million from Impact Aid in 2003 as well. [House Appropriations Committee, Minority Staff, 6/17/03, 6/16/03; Washington Post, 6/17/03; Omaha World Herald, 2/5/02; State News Service, 2/4/02] |
Another Propoganda piece that I have to pick apart. This is getting tiring.
First, The budget proposal does seek to reduce the amount of money paid as "Impact Aid". That money is paid to school districts here in the U.S. where the children of military personnel living in off-base housing attend the local public schools. That funding averages $700 per child, per year. The towns that receive this "Impact Aid" love it, because it enables them to reduce the mill rate on taxes for the education part of their budget. The local taxpayers love it, because it means lower mill rates to them. Problem is that all of US are subsidizing the taxpayers in those towns that have ( off base ) military children attending public school. Note that those children actually live in houses and the owners of those houses are supposed to pay taxes to support local services just like you and I do. So by reducing or even removing the "Impact Aid" money, all that happens is that the shortfall in the town budget will have to be apportioned to the taxpayers - AS IT SHOULD BE. Why should I pay taxes to MY town, and then have some of MY money redistributed to towns that I don't live in, just because some military kids live there????
Originally posted by Gingerbaker:
Bush's Tax Cut For The Wealthy Excluded Military Families
Bush's 2004 tax cut failed to extend a child tax credit to 200,000 low-income military families. Soldiers whose "with taxable incomes below $26,625 are ineligible for the increase in the maximum child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 that was part of a tax bill signed into law in May." Among those whose families are left out of the Bush tax cut are soldiers serving in combat zones. [Washington Post, 6/17/03; Army Times, 8/11/03] |
All I can say is GOOD GRIEF. Here we go again. Look at the lead line - Bush's Tax Cut For The Wealthy Excluded Military Families", then look at the IRS Child Tax Credit Guideline ( ref HERE about claiming the tax credit.
Let me save you from having to do the math. Joint filers won't qualify for ANY credit if they:
have 1 child and report $120,000 of income
have 2 children and report $140,000 of income
have 3 children and report $160,000 of income
etc.
According to sKerry, the "rich" are those reporting over $200,000 of income - that would mean that they wold have to claim SIX children before they would qualify for a single penny of child tax credit.
So how can you claim, as the Lead Line indicates, that it's "Bush's tax cut for the wealthy"? Explain THAT one, if you can - but of course, you can't because it's flat out not true.
Secondly, those soldiers are NOT ineligible for the increase - they are as eligible as ANYONE - the tax code does NOT contain any selectivity in it that looks at military status. It CAN be demonstrated that many military families will derive no BENEFIT from the tax credits - because they are limited to the amount ACTUALLY OWED in TAXES - Namely, if they OWE NO TAX, they can't get money back by claiming the child tax credit.
I've come to the conclusion that this kind of liberal rhetoric is going to be repeated by the liberal myrmidons ad nauseum, because most of them can't look beyond the pablum they're fed by the left-wing media.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 04:21:39 PM · #231 |
Ron, wow, there's just so much to respond to.
1. I used the phrase "lawyerly tricks" because I knew it would resonate with you.
I find that Bush supporters so completely internalize the Republican talking points, that their reactions are very predictable; and you, my friend, did not disappoint. For example, within your first paragraph you reflexively relied on two trite Republican straw-men: Trial Lawyers and the so-called liberal media. These are such smoke-and-mirror issues that addressing them is almost a complete waste of time. Nonetheless, here I go. Lumping Trial Lawyers together, and demonizing them, is akin to talking about "Fat Cat CEOs." Clearly there are abuses on both camps, just like there are good guys in each. Moreover, within our system, both Trial Lawyers and CEOs play important roles. I don't know about you, but when I've been aggrieved or abused in anyway, I want someone on my side that will aggressively represent my interests. It's just like the schoolyard principle: if a little kid is being picked on, and is lucky enough to have a big brother, we would expect the big brother to come to the rescue. Well, sometimes Trial Lawyers have to come to the rescue of those that are being bullied.
2. On the Media.
As for the so-called liberal media, jeesh, what a bunch of trash... I'm more disgusted and outraged by the so-called liberal media than I am by the Bush administration. As far as I'm concerned, at least the Bush administration makes no pretenses about whose interests they represent; while the so-called liberal media does us all a serious disservice by not cogently and consistently covering substantive issues. In stead, we get 20 second sound-bytes, where important issues are condensed into slogans. We should all be angry at the media, those of us on the Left and the Right. Yes, I'm aware of polls purporting that individual members of the press corp lean Democratic; however, such polls ignore the actual coverage that individual reporters provide on the issues. Reporters are human and, like many of us, are always looking for shortcuts to do their job. So, they rely on spoon fed information by government sources, rather than actually doing their job. The biggest lie told the American people is that the so-called liberal media is, in fact, liberal. If you're really interested in learning more about where I'm coming from, read this book and this book. As Olyuzi pointed out, even the so-called liberal New York Times apologized for their coverage leading up to the Iraq war; because, as the paper admitted, New York Times' reporters relied too much on sources with ties to the Bush administration and, as it may turn out, to the "Axis of Evil," namely Iran. That source, of course, is Mr. Ahmed Chalabi and members of his organization.
3. The Bush administration's credibility.
I'll keep this short. If the Bush administration did not have a serious credibility problem there wouldn't be any need for them to defend/qualify/substantiate the terror alerts.
..........
Now, you've presented yourself as a straight shooter... so, I hope you'll do me the service of explaining, in plain language, what I posed earlier:
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]I need someone to explain to me how the half that entertained the possibility that Mr. Clinton would fire-off missiles to distract us from the Lewinsky matter, would not be incensed at the very idea that: U.S. spies are being unmasked for political gains (see here and here) and that an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons. And I know that even those that count themselves as supporters of Mr. Bush, question whether the administration manipulated pre-war intelligence -- Flash, for example, has said as much. (Flash, I don't mean to single you out; I'm just reminded of some of your comments acknowledging that you question the administration's forthrightness before the war.) I'm just having a hard time understanding how some would not dare cut a man any slack when it came to his personal failings; but yet, are perfectly willing to ignore unapologetic breaches to our national security, and tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood -- 932, and counting, as of August 10, 2004. The only explanation I can come up is that Mr. Bush's supporters are so brand loyal that it don't matter what the product is, as long as its got a big shinny "W" decal on it. |
If your explanation is simply that you're a Republican/Bush supporter, and will remain so; well, I guess I'd just have to accept it as an answer.
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 18:32:47.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 06:24:58 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm well aware of the "spirit" of what's meant - it's meant to promote Kerry and undermine Bush ( Oh, and to sell newspapers to the liberals - 'cause they buy that horsesh** by the truckload ).
How to keep a liberal uninformed? Take away his N.Y. Times.
How to keep a liberal MISinformed? Give it back.
Ron |
If that is true, if papers are more liberal because of demand, maybe its because most republicans dont read the paper... Mr. Bush dosnt. |
And after what I've shown you about bias, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations, etc. in the mainstream media you probably have a pretty good idea why he doesn't read the papers. He doesn't really have the time to wade through all that chaff looking for a kernel of wheat. And, just like you, he has advisors who can do that for him.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 07:11:31 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm well aware of the "spirit" of what's meant - it's meant to promote Kerry and undermine Bush ( Oh, and to sell newspapers to the liberals - 'cause they buy that horsesh** by the truckload ).
How to keep a liberal uninformed? Take away his N.Y. Times.
How to keep a liberal MISinformed? Give it back.
Ron |
If that is true, if papers are more liberal because of demand, maybe its because most republicans dont read the paper... Mr. Bush dosnt. |
And after what I've shown you about bias, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations, etc. in the mainstream media you probably have a pretty good idea why he doesn't read the papers. He doesn't really have the time to wade through all that chaff looking for a kernel of wheat. And, just like you, he has advisors who can do that for him.
Ron |
Well, first Ron, I disagree with who you are calling the liberal media, but that's a side point. The main point is that a president that doesn't read the newspapers is a dangerous man soley relying on his immediate small circle of advisors. Afterall, we did not elect (supposedly elect Bush...another "besides the point":) his advisors, but rather we elected Mr. Bush to make informed decisions. You are conservative, and you read newspapers, so why not President Bush? What has he been reading, if he's not reading the papers? Oh, I know...he's been reading supposedly false and misleading intelligence papers from a faulty intelligence community (if you can really believe they are a faulty community...another "besides the point.") So he supposedly made a faulty decision based on faulty intelligence, yet, there were so many sources outside of the US/British intelligence loop that were saying otherwise about Iraq, for instance. So he's blamed it on faulty intelligence...a nice cop out, if you ask me, for a man that we are paying to read in the White House, be informed and make the big decisions regarding the safety and security of our country.
Personally, I think he's reading the comics...but that's another aside.
It also makes you wonder if a man like Bush is really making the decisions in this country. I wonder...
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 19:15:15. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 08:38:45 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
(Flash, I don't mean to single you out; I'm just reminded of some of your comments acknowledging that you question the administration's forthrightness before the war.) |
No problem here. If I said it then I said it, and I certainly said that. I do believe that Powell's integrity was used to "sell" the WMD and imminent threat portion of the Iraq war justification. I also believe that there is a bit of political side stepping going on right now regarding the use of "evidence" that so many intelligence agencies gave the same/similar information, so therefore Bush really didn't lie. True but come'on. A country's leaders in the process of sending citizens to their potential death, have a higher standard that their countrymen expect of them. Know your sources, don't screw around with the facts. On the flip side, there are at least 2 solidly independent journalist that have both concluded that Bush (not his administration, but Bush himself) is truly the decision maker. So the mud slinging of him being a "puppet" of Cheney is not true (at least to my satisfaction). Bob Woodward and now a second (I can't recall his name) was given essentially unfettered access to the White House staff and both have come away IMPRESSED by President Bush. The second journalist voted for Gore in 2000 and after his investigation, has decided to now vote for Bush. I am convinced that we as a country will not know the irrepairable damage done by President Clinton during his 8 years. I offer that the disrespect shown to our military commanders and the international intelligence officers was so severe that it will be 20-50 years before we will learn the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey says. I propose that the contrast between Bush (who gives and receives respect)and his predecessor, may be the real tie between Gen Franks and Bush.
As mentioned in the quote at the beginning of this post, I do have criticisims of this administration. Hell, I have criticisms of every administration. But for those who truly want to "get it" and understand the "real issues" you must first be able to recognize the propaganda from your own side.
Until Canon owners can genuinely look at Nikons and Nikon owners genuinely appreciate the fine attributes of Canon, then you are limiting yourself to the WHOLE truth. If you are a Christian, then study the core beliefs of Islam and Judeism. If you are a Democrat then study the core platform of Libertarians, Republican's, Socialists, Communists, etc. so that you can know where some of the core Democratic values come from, and vis versa for Republicans. Ask yourself the toughest question: Why do I believe what I believe? |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 08:56:06 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
That's relevant, all right! That's why Bush was elected. The U.S. decided that we couldn't depend on Gore to clean up the mess that he and Clinton made. |
I guess you need to be reminded that Mr. Bush actually lost the election (popular vote) by over 500,000 votes. Moreover, if the heavily Republican tilted Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Mr. Bush would've lost the electoral college, too. |
You sure about that?
//www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:08:25 PM · #236 |
| G W Bush is a lying, incompentent sack of shit and does not deserve to be reelected! |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:20:12 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by SMW409:
G W Bush is a lying, incompentent sack of shit and does not deserve to be reelected! |
haha that is one way of putting it. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:23:58 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by SMW409:
G W Bush is a lying, incompentent sack of shit and does not deserve to be reelected! |
How is that any different then 98.4% of every other politician in the US?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 10:35:33 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by Caane:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I guess you need to be reminded that Mr. Bush actually lost the election (popular vote) by over 500,000 votes. Moreover, if the heavily Republican tilted Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Mr. Bush would've lost the electoral college, too. |
You sure about that?
//www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html |
2000 Presidential Election Results (Popular vote):
Albert Gore - Democratic Candidate: 51,003,926
George W. Bush - Republican Candidate: 50,460,110
See full results here.
As for the study you provide a link to. Here's a key graf from the article you cite:
"[T]he uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings."
Also, I remember reading a Washington Post article at the time, citing that same study, with the headline: "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush; But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots." Obviously, I'm inclined to believe the second half of the headline. I don't remember the details of the article in full, but it certainly throws into doubt whether Mr. Bush could legitimately claim to have won out-right. (Especially given the results of the popular vote; which, yes, I'm aware do not directly count towards the presidency.) If you're interested in purchasing the article from the Washington Post's archive, and would like to post it here for us to read, please visit the website here.
Here's the problem that many of us that did not vote for Mr. Bush in 2000 have had. He clearly lost the popular vote by 543,816 votes; yet Mr. Bush chose to preside as if he had had a popular mandate, and from the get go was a divisive figure, not even making gestures to those on the other side of the isle. Let's remember, that it was for this very reason, Mr. Bush's divisiveness, that Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party early into Mr. Bush's tenure.
Moreover, prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush's job approval wasn't all that stellar for a recently elected president, acting as if he had a popular mandate. Of course, all that is now moot and, in stead, Mr. Bush hopes to skirt all issues by presenting himself as a "war president" -- never mind Iraq, record setting deficits and dismal job creation numbers.
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 01:33:43.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 01:16:33 AM · #240 |
Ant & Grasshopper
Posted February, 2002
ORIGINAL VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer, building his house and laying supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks heâs a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying in supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks heâs a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well-fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to pictures of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, âItâs Not Easy Being Green.â
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the antâs house, where the news stations film the group saying, âWe shall overcome.â Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopperâs sake.
Al Gore exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the ant of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his âfair share.â
Finally, the EEOC drafts the âEconomic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act,â retroactive to the beginning of the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs, and having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill had appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the antâs food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the antâs old house, crumbles around him because he doesnât maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
The moral: vote Republican
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:31:46 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Ron, wow, there's just so much to respond to.
1. I used the phrase "lawyerly tricks" because I knew it would resonate with you.
I find that Bush supporters so completely internalize the Republican talking points, that their reactions are very predictable; and you, my friend, did not disappoint. For example, within your first paragraph you reflexively relied on two trite Republican straw-men: Trial Lawyers and the so-called liberal media. These are such smoke-and-mirror issues that addressing them is almost a complete waste of time. Nonetheless, here I go. Lumping Trial Lawyers together, and demonizing them, is akin to talking about "Fat Cat CEOs." Clearly there are abuses on both camps, just like there are good guys in each. Moreover, within our system, both Trial Lawyers and CEOs play important roles. I don't know about you, but when I've been aggrieved or abused in anyway, I want someone on my side that will aggressively represent my interests. It's just like the schoolyard principle: if a little kid is being picked on, and is lucky enough to have a big brother, we would expect the big brother to come to the rescue. Well, sometimes Trial Lawyers have to come to the rescue of those that are being bullied. |
You missed my point entirely. I wasn't demonizing Trial Lawyers - I was merely pointing out that with so many LAWYERS backing the Democrats it seems that the media would be able to use all that legal talent to edit their articles befor printing them. I agree that both Trial Lawyers and CEO's are both required, and also worthy of villification.
Originally posted by bdobe:
2. On the Media.
As for the so-called liberal media, jeesh, what a bunch of trash... I'm more disgusted and outraged by the so-called liberal media than I am by the Bush administration. As far as I'm concerned, at least the Bush administration makes no pretenses about whose interests they represent; while the so-called liberal media does us all a serious disservice by not cogently and consistently covering substantive issues. In stead, we get 20 second sound-bytes, where important issues are condensed into slogans. We should all be angry at the media, those of us on the Left and the Right. Yes, I'm aware of polls purporting that individual members of the press corp lean Democratic; however, such polls ignore the actual coverage that individual reporters provide on the issues. Reporters are human and, like many of us, are always looking for shortcuts to do their job. So, they rely on spoon fed information by government sources, rather than actually doing their job. The biggest lie told the American people is that the so-called liberal media is, in fact, liberal. If you're really interested in learning more about where I'm coming from, read this book and this book. As Olyuzi pointed out, even the so-called liberal New York Times apologized for their coverage leading up to the Iraq war; because, as the paper admitted, New York Times' reporters relied too much on sources with ties to the Bush administration and, as it may turn out, to the "Axis of Evil," namely Iran. That source, of course, is Mr. Ahmed Chalabi and members of his organization. |
The purpose of mainstream newspapers is NOT to provide news and it is NOT to inform the public - the purpose of mainstream newspapers is to make money for its owners by selling as many newspapers as it can. The best way to sell newspapers is to appeal to the potential buyer by enticing them with headlines that appeal to their base desires and then not disappointing them with the content of the stories. SO...given a choice of headlines like
1) Publication of Informant's Name Compromises Intelligence Efforts
or
2) Leak allowed al Qaeda suspects to escape
which one do you think would entice someone to buy a paper? The second one, of course ( USA Today ).
As I have pointed out in prior posts, this was not a "leak". A "leak" is when information is made known secretly, outside of official channels. This information ( the informant's name ) was made known in an official background briefing to which the media had been invited.
If you like to read books ( as it appears you do ), then I would suggest these three: "Coloring the News" by William McGowan, "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, and "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter. They should all be available at Amazon.com.
Originally posted by bdobe:
3. The Bush administration's credibility.
I'll keep this short. If the Bush administration did not have a serious credibility problem there wouldn't be any need for them to defend/qualify/substantiate the terror alerts. |
Ah, but there would be. Its difficult to entice people to buy newspapers ( or watch TV News programs, or browse Internet News sites ) without "news" to proffer. And again, its necessary to appeal to the base desires of people to entice them. If you don't HAVE news, you have to CREATE news. One way to do that is to push conspiracy theories - raise lots of questions through innuendo, nuanced accusations, etc. And by doing so CREATE in the public a "demand to know" the "truth". Then, leverage that public sentiment to pressure those in power to respond to the "questions". You get the drift.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Now, you've presented yourself as a straight shooter... so, I hope you'll do me the service of explaining, in plain language, what I posed earlier:
Originally posted by bdobe:
[...]I need someone to explain to me how the half that entertained the possibility that Mr. Clinton would fire-off missiles to distract us from the Lewinsky matter, would not be incensed at the very idea that: U.S. spies are being unmasked for political gains (see here and here) and that an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons. And I know that even those that count themselves as supporters of Mr. Bush, question whether the administration manipulated pre-war intelligence -- Flash, for example, has said as much. (Flash, I don't mean to single you out; I'm just reminded of some of your comments acknowledging that you question the administration's forthrightness before the war.) I'm just having a hard time understanding how some would not dare cut a man any slack when it came to his personal failings; but yet, are perfectly willing to ignore unapologetic breaches to our national security, and tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood -- 932, and counting, as of August 10, 2004. The only explanation I can come up is that Mr. Bush's supporters are so brand loyal that it don't matter what the product is, as long as its got a big shinny "W" decal on it. |
If your explanation is simply that you're a Republican/Bush supporter, and will remain so; well, I guess I'd just have to accept it as an answer. |
Too many questions in one byte. Let me break them down, if you don't mind.
1) Spies being unmasked for political gain: I assume that you are referring to the release of the name of an informant in the background briefing. While I think that it is a VERY remote possibility that the release of his name may have been "politically" motivated, I don't see what "political" purpose it would have served. The "political" purpose would have been served WITHOUT naming him. I believe that his name was provided only to "prove" that there WAS credible information to raise the terror alert level in NY, NJ, and DC - a proof that was becoming the cause célèbre of the media.
2) an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons: The "wrong reasons" are perhaps evident in hindsight, but I would ask you what you would have done in Bush's place if you did NOT know then what you know now. Have you ever made a well-thought out decision that resulted in your doing something that had completely undesirable, if not terrible consequences? I'll bet you have.
3) manipulation of pre-war intelligence: The 9/11 commission did not find any manipulation on the part of the administration. It appears that you do not believe their findings. I do.
4) unapologetic breaches to our national security: I am not willing to ignore breaches to our national security, and I would hope that President Bush doesn't either ( I won't speak to the "unapologetic" part, yet - I'm waiting, and hoping, that someone in the Bush administration accepts responsibility for that major mistake and apologizes ). If this plays out like many previous instances, I believe that Bush is bringing pressure to bear behind the scenes - he seldom "outs" those who need to 'fess up - he lets them do it on their own or quietly removes them from their position of trust.
5) tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood: I don't tolerate the "questionable" expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood. But then, I don't think that the war in Iraq is a "questionable" expenditure. What I myself find hard to believe is that a great number of otherwise humanitarian individuals in America would so callously discount the value of foreigners' blood. It seems to be the group-think that the blood of 932 Americans are worth more than the blood of thousands, if not tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Sudanese, or Somalians. To me, that appears to be xenophobia. I wonder if people who think like that would be willing to come to the aid of a french woman being attacked by an American on a street corner in Paris. After all, the American's blood is worth so much more. Well, actually I know of SOME Americans who would - they are called soldiers, and many of them are in Iraq right now.
6) brand loyalty to Bush: No. I am quite frankly extremely disappointed in the way Bush has pandered to the Democrats by approving more spending bills, for more money, than any president in recent history. I am disappointed that he has not used his position to persuade the Republican senators to break the unconstitutional blockage of his judicial nominees or to make more recess appointments. There are MANY areas in which I disagree with Bush. What I AM opposed to is the unsubstantiated charges, accusations, and innuendo that are constantly being tossed about in the media, and in these boards. You can call that brand loyalty if you'd like.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 04:45:52 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
My certainly biased take on it is thus:
General Franks, by declaring Kerry as fit for command, demonstrates both judgement and honesty.
As such a person, especially one with hands-on experience dealing with Bush and his crowd, it is somewhat surprising to think that he would contemplate actually supporting Bush.
Quite a few high-ranking officers, now retired, have waxed eloquent on their resons why they now support Kerry.
Franks was put in a bad position by Rumsfeld, being repeatedly denied the numbers of men on the ground for the campaign in Iraq. Franks wound up taking a lot of heat for letting this happen from the Democrats, though, which is why I personally think he is fence straddling.
Of course, on the otherhand, Franks may just be a strong Republican.
But, for the life of me, considering the Bush record on how the military has been mistreated on the ground - not enough men, equipment, ammunition, supplies; dishonesty about tours of duty, reductions in combat pay,etc - and how they have been mistreated as Veterans - reductions in medical coverages,etc - I really do believe that many military people - at least those who have seen action - now feel Kerry to offer a better choice for the military man and their families.
So, is Franks "carrying water"? Beats me. Is he still in active duty? |
One of your more cogent posts, Gingerbaker. I respect your opinions and the ( mostly ) civil way in which you have expressed them.
I do, however, take exception to your use of the phrases "dishonesty about tours of duty" and "reductions of medical coverages, etc".
1) There was no dishonesty about tours of duty - when one "signs on the dotted line" to join our all-volunteer military, one acknowledges that he/she has read the contract and agrees to be bound by it.
2) While there have, in fact, been reductions in medical coverages, they were not enacted by the Bush administration - they are imposed by an Act of Congress. As I rebutted that same aclaim in another post:
For a more realistic view, you should read THIS articlefrom the Washington Post. An excerpt:
"The restrictions, which take effect today, apply to what the agency calls Category 8 veterans, the lowest priority in health care. These are veterans with relatively high incomes who do not suffer from military service-related disabilities or health problems. Category 8 income levels vary depending on geographic location, but Principi said generally the restrictions will apply to veterans with annual incomes of $30,000 to $35,000 or higher.
The restrictions will apply only to new enrollees and will not affect the 1.4 million Category 8 veterans who currently receive health care from the VA, he said.
Principi is required by law to set eligibility rules for the VA health care system every year...Principi informed leaders of veterans groups of his decision yesterday morning. Spokesmen for the groups said they understood why the restrictions were being imposed, but they lashed out at Congress for what they called inadequate funding of VA health care. "Without proper funding, the secretary is never going to get [the backlog] down, so what he has done is to make the tough business decision," said Bob Wallace, executive director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "If they can't take care of them, it's unconscionable to let them continue to enroll. The real bad guys in this is the Congress because they haven't fully funded the VA. I don't want to see anybody excluded from care, but we can't allow these false expectations and these lines to get longer and longer."
Note that even the executive director of the VFW blames the Congress, not the Administration. Note, too, that the VA is REQUIRED by LAW to set the eligibility rules each fiscal year so as to be within the Congressionally approved budget.
(emphasis mine)
On another note - Franks is retired.
Ron |
You seem to be stuck on popular vote. Though it hasn't happened often that the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, it has happened before. Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden 185 to 184 in the electoral college but lost the popular vote by more than 200,000 votes. I remember President Bush's comment following outcome....he said if the popular vote winner won presidential elections he would have campaigned differently. //www.ipl.org/div/potus/rbhayes.html
By the way I am undecided in the upcoming election and ignore the attack adds. I think John Kerry is an admirable politician. Ive voted for him in the past for U.S. Senate. But I dont think that President bush is all that bad either. Soon I will make my decision after seeing them in the debates.
Peace RonB....
Caane |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 05:42:58 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by Caane:
You seem to be stuck on popular vote. Though it hasn't happened often that the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, it has happened before. Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden 185 to 184 in the electoral college but lost the popular vote by more than 200,000 votes. I remember President Bush's comment following outcome....he said if the popular vote winner won presidential elections he would have campaigned differently. //www.ipl.org/div/potus/rbhayes.html
By the way I am undecided in the upcoming election and ignore the attack adds. I think John Kerry is an admirable politician. Ive voted for him in the past for U.S. Senate. But I dont think that President bush is all that bad either. Soon I will make my decision after seeing them in the debates.
Peace RonB....
Caane |
Peace to you too. Hopefully, in our lifetime.
I'm a bit confused as to who you are directing the "You seem to be stuck on popular vote" statement towards. I am not stuck on it, and I don't remember seeing evidence that Gingerbaker is, either.
The electoral college process of electing the President is the reason that the BIG number states like New York, California, and, uh, Florida are visited multiple times by the candidates, and the LITTLE number states like Idaho and Wyoming may not see the candidates at all. A candidate could lose several little-number states and still come out ahead if they win one big-number state. For sure, if the popular vote of the entire U.S. determined who won, then campaigning would be vastly different.
Gosh, at the present time, if you had ignored all the attack ads, you would have ignored them all. Hopefully, between now and the election, we will begin to see some ads that actually present the candidates positions on the issues that are important.
A MAJOR player in this election cycle is the introduction of the non-candidate funded ads from groups like MoveOn.Org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I don't believe that we will EVER see a non-negative ad from their ilk. Too bad. It's sad to see that we are practically being forced to decide on a candidate who is the "lesser of two evils", since all these negative ads portray the "other guy" as the evil one.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 17:45:15. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 05:47:20 PM · #244 |
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 05:50:15 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is the freedom that keeps us at the top. Freedom of commerce, expression, etc. The looney left hates America, It hates God and hates everything, all principles upon which this country was founded.
I can not believe that anyone in their right mind would want a kerry, an Edwards or A moore in charge of this Countries' defense. |
I would hardly call Kerry supporters 'leftists'. From someone who's ideas and beliefs tend to fall to the left of the scale, I give a great big raspberry to you and your extremist, knee-jerk, reactionary, intolerant comment. I love God, my country, and the principals of Democracy. I loathe George Bush. He scares the bejesuz out of me, frankly. I fear Rumsfeld even more. That is one evil, control-freak, SOB, if there ever was one.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:09:29 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Are you for real. We feed countries around the globe. We are the only super power and you can check these stats simply in energy consumption. We are that big. But the left wants no oil drilling. Better to have others drill in their yards.
The concern with Global Warming and fresh air is more like an anal preoccupation. Do you really think that man is that important in the interplanetary scheme of this vast cosmos. What arrogance we have that we can affect the weather. Look the sun will burn until it burns itself out. In the interim ir will experience a shower of sun-spot We are , that will play havoc with the weather.We are like ants in the scheme of this universe.
Yes, the loonet left scares me, but I am not affraid of communism or socialism. they are substandards. Show me where they work. |
These comments are the looniest I have read in a long time. To be truthful, I never really get the gist of what you are saying so this is probably just more of the same. But are you actually using some kind of cosmic mumbo jumbo to say that man has no influence on his environment? That it doesn't matter what we do to our air, water, and untouched wilderness in the name of commerce? That it doesn't matter that there are actually children going hungry every day right here in the US? That there are people who can't afford the expensive prescription drugs to treat serious illness? Just an example, a good friend of mine who had been surviving his HIV status for the past decade, recently lost his insurance when United Health decided to cancel privately held insurance policies. He and his partner of 17 years were forced to make the decision to sell their house in Rhode Island in order to buy in Florida where it is cheaper (and warmer) so he has a fighting chance of paying for some of his medical care. It was scary, the visible decline he took when he no longer had access to many of the drugs that were keeping his condition stable. He was not eligible for the very good free health plan that Rhode Island offers because he doesn't have children. While I appreciate this plan very much, as someone who does take advantage of it (not because we are "freeloaders" as some extreme conservatives might suggest but because my husband works for a small business that doesn't offer a health plan and we can't afford private insurance) I wish that it also covered people without children who are to ill to work. Social security and disability just aren't enough to support the medical bills of someone with a serious illness. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:11:53 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ? |
Yes, there is a good reason to continue that process. If the president was elected by popular vote alone, rural issues could be completely ignored by a candidate. For example, the vote of entire states like Idaho and Wyoming could be wiped out by the vote in New York City alone. So, a candidate could completely ignore the issues in areas with sparse populations and pander solely to the voters in dense urban areas and up being a president of SOME of the people, instead of ALL of the people. With the electoral college, at least rural states like Wyoming can hope to have a voice equal to that of the smaller non-rural states like Rhode Island. ( disclaimer: I don't mean to imply that Wyoming doesn't have any urban areas, nor that Rhode Island doesn't have rural areas - I'm just contrasting the character of the states as a whole. Furthermore, I am in no way judging the merits of being either rural or non-rural ).
Ron |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:21:10 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ? |
Yes, there is a good reason to continue that process. If the president was elected by popular vote alone, rural issues could be completely ignored by a candidate. For example, the vote of entire states like Idaho and Wyoming could be wiped out by the vote in New York City alone. So, a candidate could completely ignore the issues in areas with sparse populations and pander solely to the voters in dense urban areas and up being a president of SOME of the people, instead of ALL of the people. With the electoral college, at least rural states like Wyoming can hope to have a voice equal to that of the smaller non-rural states like Rhode Island. ( disclaimer: I don't mean to imply that Wyoming doesn't have any urban areas, nor that Rhode Island doesn't have rural areas - I'm just contrasting the character of the states as a whole. Furthermore, I am in no way judging the merits of being either rural or non-rural ).
Ron |
True - I certainly see the value of distributing representation by state for the various houses and senates etc and these are surely a large part of the 'checks and balances' in place on presidential power. Is the population of New York so large to offset the remaining 300 million - NY population ?
Currently the president is obviously a president of just some of the people, rather than all of them anyway - by electoral college or popular vote, the result was roughly 50/50 anyway, plus or minus a few million people, which in a count of 300 million is less than 1% (obviously ignoring the apathetic majority (minority? ) who don't even bother to join in and vote.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:39:54 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
Someone else my have already responded to this but I haven't read the entire thread yet so I'm going to anyway. Being aware that there are many environmental studies which are funded by corporations to slant science in their favor, I looked up the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and lo and behold, discovered that they have financial ties to Exxon.
Here is the info from //www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
Founded in 1998 and based in Tempe, AZ, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is âdedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on climate and the biosphere.â [1]
The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.
According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil. [2]
StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [3]
The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.
The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:57:47 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by RonB:
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
Someone else my have already responded to this but I haven't read the entire thread yet so I'm going to anyway. Being aware that there are many environmental studies which are funded by corporations to slant science in their favor, I looked up the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and lo and behold, discovered that they have financial ties to Exxon.
Here is the info from //www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
Founded in 1998 and based in Tempe, AZ, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is âdedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on climate and the biosphere.â [1]
The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.
According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil. [2]
StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [3]
The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.
The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. |
Thanks for pointing out those items of interest.
So. The center is funded by Exxon. Nice detective work.
Now, for something REALLY significant, perhaps you could actually address their findings. Or do you automatically discount those based solely on the source of funding?
The tendency of some folks to completely discount information based on the source's funding is rather ludicrous. That's like saying that you wouldn't eat an apple that someone gave you if the money they used to pay for it came from their employer, a company that is in the business of producing pesticides.
Although I can certainly understand why liberals take this position. It allows them to discount everything that doesn't support their position using Kevin Bacon's six degrees of separation.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 18:58:25. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:49:34 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:49:34 PM EDT.
|
