fahrenheit 9/11
I'm somewhat neutral on Bush, I'm used to the President being a bit more articulate, its his cronies I have issues with, Rumsfield in particular, now that we have commited to the military option we should use it aggresively, there remains "something" I don't like about Kerry although I can't explain it even to myself. Interesting times, I don't think we can afford to underestimate Al Qaeda and its support across the Islamic world. We fire bombed cities in both Europe and Japan in WW2 we can't let civilian deaths dictate how the military operates " what will happen the Muslim world already hates us" ask Mr Berg or Johnson how our foes treated their civilian status.
Here are some headlines, with dates and sources, some of you might want to investigate further. If we don't have an earth to walk on, air to breath, water to drink....it won't matter what the unemployment rate is or who we are fighting with, etc. We will all be dead! 
But I must warn you....I am as biased as Michael Moore. Bush's stand on environmental issues alone is reason enough(for me) to not vote for him....
10-11-2003 - Washington Post
Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.
10-10-2003 - Associated Press
Bush overturns limits on mining waste sites
10-3-2003 - White House Proclamation
Bush declares Marriage Protection Week.
9-24-2003 - New York Times
Bush tells Congress not to offer a Medicare prescription drug benefit to the poor
9-1-2003 - USA Today
Bush allows the sale of PCB-polluted lands
8-29-2003 - Associated Press
Bush expands global abortion gag rules
8-29-2003 - Washington Post
Bush chooses not to regulate auto emissions.
8-29-2003 - Associated Press
Bush cuts Energy Star program
8-23-2003 - Washington Post
Bush relaxes clean air rules.
8-11-2003 - Associated Press
Bush pushes plan to make it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.
7-31-2003 - CBS News
Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage.
7-6-2003 - USA Today
Bush continues to push for new nuclear weapons.(this one's very interesting...)
But I must warn you....I am as biased as Michael Moore. Bush's stand on environmental issues alone is reason enough(for me) to not vote for him.... 10-11-2003 - Washington Post
Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.
10-10-2003 - Associated Press
Bush overturns limits on mining waste sites
10-3-2003 - White House Proclamation
Bush declares Marriage Protection Week.
9-24-2003 - New York Times
Bush tells Congress not to offer a Medicare prescription drug benefit to the poor
9-1-2003 - USA Today
Bush allows the sale of PCB-polluted lands
8-29-2003 - Associated Press
Bush expands global abortion gag rules
8-29-2003 - Washington Post
Bush chooses not to regulate auto emissions.
8-29-2003 - Associated Press
Bush cuts Energy Star program
8-23-2003 - Washington Post
Bush relaxes clean air rules.
8-11-2003 - Associated Press
Bush pushes plan to make it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.
7-31-2003 - CBS News
Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage.
7-6-2003 - USA Today
Bush continues to push for new nuclear weapons.(this one's very interesting...)
-
Uncle Big Green
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 8:55 pm
it is fact that GW spent lotso' $ on social programs and at amounts on par (at least) with those of the Dems. He has also gone along with more than one Dem. supported/sponsored spending bills. I can dig-up these facts if you really want, but one was an education spending bill and you can do your own homework (so you can "know").Spragwa wrote:It's my opinion. I don't claim to absolutely "know" and neither do you. But it is my opinion...just like your post was.
I can sleep at night bec. I vote L - not D or R.
democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch
Uncle Big Green: I know all of those facts as well. However, I also know that people spin facts to suit their own beliefs and opinions. Basically to justify what they already believe in. That is why I couch my statements in terms of what I believe.
I can sleep at night because I'm tired.
I can sleep at night because I'm tired.
Jesus only knows that she tries too hard. She's only trying to keep the sky from falling.
-Everlast
-Everlast
I'm glad to hear conservatives here being honest about how the current Bush administration is a 'tax and spend' administration. The problem is that while they are spending shitloads on the military (and, yes, a little on "social programs"), they are taxing our futures. Their crazed deficit spending is just deferring the bill onto our retirements. But don't worry, Dick Cheney will be fine until he dies. I'll be here working my ass off to pay the bill he's running up today.
But don't worry: the budget that the administration has proposed cuts lots of silly spending, like feeding children or providing health care to military reservists or keeping police on our streets. But, hey, what are the alternatives? Raising taxes on the super-rich? Renegotiating the cost-plus contracts with Haliburton? We can't have that!
What I'm talking about here is known as "policy debate", which is frighteningly lacking in the current White House.
What 'social spending' is the administration funding? The Bush II admin. is a huge fan of "abstinence only education", for example. You'd think that this means "Just say no", but what is actually being presented to kids is crap along the lines of "condoms don't always work, so (wink, nudge) don't have sex!" The message that the kids are getting is "since condoms aren't 100% effective, don't bother using them." The ideology that says that "if kids are informed and educated about STDs and the biological aspects of sexual reproduction, then they will go out and fuck like bunnies, but if we keep them in the dark and scare them about everything, they won't fuck at all" is obviously crap. (after all, everyone here stayed away from drugs, right?) But the current Administration promotes that view. If you want to get a research grant, I'll bet that a grant proposal write-up to an administration controlled science institution that make it clear that you are going to generate data that supports abstinence-only will score.
Under the current administration, this sort of thing is everywhere. From sex education, to climate change, to pollutants. But this sort of "science as a tool of politics" has it's precedents:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.0 ... story_top5
The article talks about Stalin's head of agriculture science. Not surprisingly, this schmuck promoted only ideologically-approved science and as a result, people starved. Right now, the Bush II administration is promoting crap like 'maybe global warming isn't happening' pseudo-science. Fuck the future of the planet, I want my oil stocks to go up!
But don't worry: the budget that the administration has proposed cuts lots of silly spending, like feeding children or providing health care to military reservists or keeping police on our streets. But, hey, what are the alternatives? Raising taxes on the super-rich? Renegotiating the cost-plus contracts with Haliburton? We can't have that!
What I'm talking about here is known as "policy debate", which is frighteningly lacking in the current White House.
What 'social spending' is the administration funding? The Bush II admin. is a huge fan of "abstinence only education", for example. You'd think that this means "Just say no", but what is actually being presented to kids is crap along the lines of "condoms don't always work, so (wink, nudge) don't have sex!" The message that the kids are getting is "since condoms aren't 100% effective, don't bother using them." The ideology that says that "if kids are informed and educated about STDs and the biological aspects of sexual reproduction, then they will go out and fuck like bunnies, but if we keep them in the dark and scare them about everything, they won't fuck at all" is obviously crap. (after all, everyone here stayed away from drugs, right?) But the current Administration promotes that view. If you want to get a research grant, I'll bet that a grant proposal write-up to an administration controlled science institution that make it clear that you are going to generate data that supports abstinence-only will score.
Under the current administration, this sort of thing is everywhere. From sex education, to climate change, to pollutants. But this sort of "science as a tool of politics" has it's precedents:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.0 ... story_top5
The article talks about Stalin's head of agriculture science. Not surprisingly, this schmuck promoted only ideologically-approved science and as a result, people starved. Right now, the Bush II administration is promoting crap like 'maybe global warming isn't happening' pseudo-science. Fuck the future of the planet, I want my oil stocks to go up!
Bacon is meat candy.
-
Uncle Big Green
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 8:55 pm
Ha, that IS funny!Spragwa wrote:I can sleep at night because I'm tired.
Tom, I hope you're not calling ME a conservative. I think you sound just as bad as one, however. No, make that worse. No offense.
Mia, I'm not wasting my vote if I'm voting for the candidate on the ballot who ideology most closely matches mine. If I sit at home and don't vote, then no one knows there's more out there than just Coke and Pepsi.
democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch
-
Uncle Big Green
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 8:55 pm