Democrat Points

[Ieatcamaros]

I don't base my decisions on how the bastards look. No matter who wins the election, he who voted for kerry is going to blame the one who voted for bush and vice verse. If kerry wins, I am going to get a sticker that was once on half of the cars in america. "DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR BUSH" I am glad this only comes around every four years. If it didn't we would kill each other arguing to death.

Energy- Kerry and Edwards want to find alternative means of energy to make us less dependent on oil.. things like solar power, windmills, ethanol

That is fine with me, but it will never happen. That is one of those campaign lies to get people to vote for him. And I am not saying that Bush doesn't do the same. IMO, all politicians only have one thing in mind. Their wallets.

[Ieatcamaros]

I got this in an email a couple of days ago. I thought a few would like to read it.

Another voice heard from Observations by an Air Force Pilot.
> I'm confident that in approximately 15 minutes this article will be in
> the inboxes of every resident of the free world and maybe even a few
> people in France.
> Chris Thomas, Air Force Pilot:
> I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience.
> During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a
> small twin engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in
> Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his
> congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) who
> was also in Kerry's party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia
> as part of the MIA/POW talks.
> When I met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat
> on it. I told him I had a 27' sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked "Oh I
> never sail on anything less than 135 feet."
> Thanks, Senator, "I feel even better about the meager salary I get paid
> for flying you around the Pacific."
> When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the
> airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and
> passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because
> they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government when we
> landed. The pizza was the crew's only meal for that day and he ate it.
> Then when we picked him up in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to
> the airport. Because fuel was an issue, we could not start the engines
> and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived. Phnom Penh at
> that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically
> sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows.
> When he finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the
> perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the
> airplane and asks us "Could you guys get the air-conditioning running,
> I'm a little warm?" The other pilot had to physically restrain me from
> going back there and picking a fight.
> Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi.
> After we picked him up the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we
> stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for take off and
> noticed that our prop rpm was vibrating all over the place. We taxied
> off to the side to look at it, but there was a good possibility that
> there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off
> with it.
> Well, Mr. Senator sticks his head up in the cockpit and says "This
> > plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three
> hours!"
> (Maybe this is an indication of how he will run the FAA).
> American service members lives be damned, we had our Senatorial orders.
> We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off
> and made it back. During the flight, he told everyone how he had taken
> a Cessna (a small General aviation plane) up with a fighter pilot, and
> the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one of the best pilots he had
> ever seen. I don't know about other pilots out there,but it's hard to
> imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot being able to show the
> "right stuff."
> After Kerry left the plane, the Navy Captain came up to us, apologized
> and said basically that "he knows Kerry is a jerk" and that we should
> be glad we don't have to deal with him every day.
> Your choice folks. Elections in November. You want a mega-millionaire
> ego-maniac it's-all-about-me crew-eating-pizza-ite like Kerry or maybe
> a Green Party candidate like Ralph Nader? Or, God forbid, maybe even
> re-elect George Bush, a nice God fearing Christian bent on protecting
> us from terrorist attacks on US soil?
> Hmmm, let's see?

[rbohm]

Economy- The bankrupcy rate and unemployment rates have been the highest in history. Interest rates have been the lowest. This is not the sign of a strong economy. People losing part of their health and welfare benefits is not a good sign. Have you been to the grocery store lately? So I guess if folks losing thier homes, jobs and retirement is the sign of a good economy then... the last 42 monthes have been swell.

first the economy started tanking under clinton and his policies of higher taxes on the wealthy(anyone making money). second the unemployment rate under bush was at 5.6%, or that same as under clinton(hmmm, perhaps we give clinton a pass on this because people liked him?? sorry no go here). third, yes there were 3 million jobs lost, but that also started under, hmmm who was it? oh yes CLINTON!! and there have been nearly 2 millions jobs created in the last 10 months, sounds to me like the job market is coming back. as far as interest rates are concerned, they are moving upwards, slowly as they should to prevent a relapse, and to prevent excessive inflation. home construction is also up. the stock market is back around 10k, yes i would say the economy is rebounding. oh yes, the growth rate for the economy is much higher than it was under clinton, and is as high as it was under reagan!



National Security- Now I agreed and always have agreed that attacking Iraq was justified, I just couldn't figure out why he used the broad "WMD" reason. The fact that they broke the treaty was cause for action. I figured it out last week when Bush made comment of Iran having nuclear weapons. I guest that falls under "WMD". So now I see that everyone is at risk of being invaded by Bush. WMD?!? ATTACK!! So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the middle east doesn't want Bush in power. If I lived over there I would probably be afraid of being attacked, which is probably why Saudi has bought radio ads in 16 major US cities saying they never had anything to do with the terrorist and don't support them. So if you feel safe ticking off the rest of the world.. its a false sense of security, my friend.

on national security, hmmmm yes kerry is all for our armed forces having the best equipment, well except for the F14, F15, F16, F18, F117, F22, B1, B2, tomahawk cruise missles, and dozens of other weapons programs that they have now that he voted AGAINST. also consider that people keep saying bush lied about wmd's in iraq, but if that is the case, then why does clinton, gore,KERRY, EDWARDS, kennedy, daschle, gephart, the UN, france, germany, russia, egypt, jordan, and dozens other countries, and comgressional democrats get a pass on the fact that they also claimed iraq had wmd's? oh thats right, they hate bush with a passion, and so they develope a memory loss about what they said, and focus only on what bush said. sorry again that does play here pal. the democrats cant claim micheal moore is right, when they proclaimed themselves that saddam had wmd's.

according to the men who served with kerry, he wasnt a leader in vietam, and they will tell you that he isnt a leader here either. sorry but kerry is just plain wrong for the country, and our "cowboy" president is the right person for the job. read this regarding cowboys www.catsprn.com/cowboys.htm yes i want a cowboy fror president as you can trust them to do what they say the will. kerry says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich(same definition as clinton, anyone making money), and he wants to reverse the tax cuts created under bush, but he doesnt want to.....raise.......taxes......on the middle....class..........hmmmmm how does that work again??? according to my math....IT DOESNT. come people think about what kerry is saying, if he actually says anything when he talks.

[Ieatcamaros]

You have made a very good point, rbohm. For some reason, the Kerry folks can't see this.

Everyone should read the link rbohm posted. Cowboys have always been the sh!t.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by rbohm

first the economy started tanking under clinton and his policies of higher taxes on the wealthy(anyone making money). second the unemployment rate under bush was at 5.6%, or that same as under clinton(hmmm, perhaps we give clinton a pass on this because people liked him?? sorry no go here). third, yes there were 3 million jobs lost, but that also started under, hmmm who was it? oh yes CLINTON!! and there have been nearly 2 millions jobs created in the last 10 months, sounds to me like the job market is coming back. as far as interest rates are concerned, they are moving upwards, slowly as they should to prevent a relapse, and to prevent excessive inflation. home construction is also up. the stock market is back around 10k, yes i would say the economy is rebounding. oh yes, the growth rate for the economy is much higher than it was under clinton, and is as high as it was under reagan!

So you want to blame Clinton for the past 42 monthes?? Whatever. How can it be said that Bush's performance has been good the past 42 monthes and then everything bad that happened the past 42 monthes can be blamed on Clinton? Yes rates are inching up but they are still very low and we are talking about the last 42 monthes, aren't we? The economy still isn't that good its just not quite as bad as it was.. if you want to call that good, so be it. The growth rate, its kinda hard to grow when the economy is so good to start with..


also consider that people keep saying bush lied about wmd's in iraq, but if that is the case, then why does clinton, gore,KERRY, EDWARDS, kennedy, daschle, gephart, the UN, france, germany, russia, egypt, jordan, and dozens other countries, and comgressional democrats get a pass on the fact that they also claimed iraq had wmd's? oh thats right, they hate bush with a passion, and so they develope a memory loss about what they said, and focus only on what bush said. sorry again that does play here pal. the democrats cant claim micheal moore is right, when they proclaimed themselves that saddam had wmd's.

You are changing the subject or trying to slide around it. How are you going to prove me wrong when you don't address what I said?? I never said Iraq didn't have wmd, I believe they do/did. What I said was that Bush used that as an excuse and bought the support of other countries. We didn't/don't have the agreement with the rest of the world that we had with Iraq. Sadam broke the treaty we made with him after desert storm and that was reason enough to take action. Instead we now have a war that is not justified to alot of the world and a reason to invade anyone.


according to the men who served with kerry, he wasnt a leader in vietam, and they will tell you that he isnt a leader here either. sorry but kerry is just plain wrong for the country, and our "cowboy" president is the right person for the job. read this regarding cowboys www.catsprn.com/cowboys.htm yes i want a cowboy fror president as you can trust them to do what they say the will. kerry says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich(same definition as clinton, anyone making money), and he wants to reverse the tax cuts created under bush, but he doesnt want to.....raise.......taxes......on the middle....class..........hmmmmm how does that work again??? according to my math....IT DOESNT. come people think about what kerry is saying, if he actually says anything when he talks.

I don't know where you are getting this information but I keep hearing two sides to this story so nothing is proven. Even if it is true it proves what?? that some people don't like thier boss or that Kerry is a jerk? So what? I don't particularly like Kerry, hell I don't know him but I think he will be a much better choice than Bush.

Both the democrats and republicans have thier good/bad points. What really bothers me, is that some folks are soo extreme in thier views that they can't see anything else. They choose the left or right and do all they can to defend themselves or attack the other, counter-productive I say, and leads me to believe they have a hidden agenda. I'd like to see folks come to thier own conclusions and realize there is a middle ground and good/bad on both sides, instead of having someone else tell them what they believe or try to force thier views on others. I really get sick of facts being twisted and taken out of context, which is why I don't really care for politics, I suppose.

Look, I don't have internet access right now so I will check back when I can, but I doubt I'll have much more to say on this subject. People will believe what they want and vote how they want. I've said my piece.

There is one question I'd like to ask though.. How is it that the 'liberal media', I've heard so much about, is allowed to keep spewing out all these 'lies' when they are owned by conservatives??

[Mr 5 0]

I've been busy and just now have had to time to respond to this:

Originally posted by RBatson

First of all, I'd like to say that if you vote for someone based on how you think they look, you're an idiot. Fortunately the majority of folks won't and Kerry will win.

Very few people who are serious enough to go out and vote (50% of eligible voters don't even bother) will do so on the basis on a candidate's appearance. The few that do won't make a difference, either way.

Jim, I know this arguement is redundant and I'm wasting my time because you are not about to consider any point of view except your own, here goes anyhow.

Let me stop you right there, Rick, because that statement is based on a fallacy. Here's why:

There are facts and there are opinions. I look at the facts and from those facts - and my political ideology, which happens to be conservative - I form my opinions, or my 'views', as you put it. That I won't consider any views but my own is simply not true. Think about it: I have to consider pro-Kerry, liberal political views before I can decide to reject and oppose them and to do that, I have to understand the ideology behind them, as well as know the facts. So your supposition that I simply refuse to consider political opinions other than my own is fallacious. What you probably mean is that I actively oppose liberal, Democrat-party opinions and conclusions, which is true.

Economy- The bankrupcy rate and unemployment rates have been the highest in history. Interest rates have been the lowest. This is not the sign of a strong economy. People losing part of their health and welfare benefits is not a good sign. Have you been to the grocery store lately? So I guess if folks losing thier homes, jobs and retirement is the sign of a good economy then... the last 42 monthes have been swell.

You really need to stop reading those biased stories written by liberals and start reading the Wall Street Journal so you can at least get your facts straight. Unemployment is down (to 5.6%, the same as in the 'oh-so glorious boom years' of the Clinton administration), not up. Home-building is way up thanks to continuing low mortage interest rates fueled by a thriving economy. Worker productivity is up 2.9%, (a good indicator for a growing economy) retail sales were up last month (July), the CPI is down, consumer confidence is up. Job growth has been phenomenal (2 million news jobs this year) and the GDP rate is between 3 - 4%, which is excellent. In short: with a few normal flucations (job growth dipped in July) the U.S. economy is fully recovered from the 2000 recession and second hit it took in the months after 9/11. You can search around and find some negative statistics but the solid economic facts indicate that the U.S. economy is thriving.

The price of oil went up to a record high last week but the price of gas is dropping, doesn't have anything to do with an upcoming election, does it? I'm sure Bush has nothing to do with that though.

Rick, here's a clue for you to ponder. First: the price of crude oil that you mentioned has dropped again. Second, the price of gas at the local station's pump comes from crude purchased many months ago. While many gasoline suppliers do jack up the price whenever possible, the lowering cost of retail gasoline simply reflects the lowered cost of the gas to suppliers. It's not a deep, dark conspiracy, as you infer and you're doing so is rather naive.

Energy- Kerry and Edwards want to find alternative means of energy to make us less dependent on oil.. things like solar power, windmills, ethanol. Sounds good to me!

Spare me! Windmills have been tried and failed as a source of energy becuase they are unreliable most of the time. Solar has it's own major drawbacks, obviously and ethanol is a boondoggle that makes corn farmers rich but has environmental drawbacks and requires more energy to produce than it saves. These flawed energy 'alternatives' have been around for decades and the Democrats have nothing new to add here, just political rhetoric.

Ever hear of Mother Earth? We waste way more resources than we have to and we are the smartest creatures on the planet but sometimes we don't put logic to good use. I think its because of money and greed, which brings me to my next point. Bush's plan. He wants to give the oil companies a tax break and start drilling on federal wildlife reserves. Now I'm no treehugger but that doesn't sound like it is in the best interest of the people or the environment. Conservatist? Conserving what?? Their bank rolls and ideals is all.

ANWAR is a large frozen tundra in a near-uninhabited section of Alaska and drilling on a tiny portion of it won't do anything or anyone any harm, environmentally or otherwise. The Caribou don't seem to mind and the Alaskan natives don't mind (they've said so, to congress) and we could use the oil but no, a handful of environmental whackos with more concern for frozen dirt than the American people and their welfare - when it comes to energy - block ANWAR drilling while patting themselves on the back for how 'sensitive' they are. Yet folks like you get all upset when gas prices go up because we have to depend so haevily (60%) on 'foreign oil'. Go figure.

National Security- Now I agreed and always have agreed that attacking Iraq was justified, I just couldn't figure out why he used the broad "WMD" reason. The fact that they broke the treaty was cause for action. I figured it out last week when Bush made comment of Iran having nuclear weapons. I guest that falls under "WMD". So now I see that everyone is at risk of being invaded by Bush. WMD?!? ATTACK!! So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the middle east doesn't want Bush in power. If I lived over there I would probably be afraid of being attacked, which is probably why Saudi has bought radio ads in 16 major US cities saying they never had anything to do with the terrorist and don't support them. So if you feel safe ticking off the rest of the world.. its a false sense of security, my friend.

What a mish-mash of muddled thinking that paragraph represents.

Yes, Rick: 'WMD" (Weapons of Mass Destruction) would include nuclear missiles. Theocratic, Islam-dominated Iran is a major threat to the region and ultimately, the U.S. if and when (it's just a matter of time) they possess nuclear capabilities. The president and all Americans have a right to be concerned about this. We want the terrorist-supporting Arab nations to be 'afraid' of being attacked. It's called 'deterrence' and it worked fairly well with the old U.S.S.R. for over 50 years. If you feel safe ignoring that reality then it's a false sense of security, my friend.

So yes, I'm standing by my comment that Bush isn't qualified to be president but he makes a damn good cowboy.

George W. Bush has proven himself well-qualified to be president and he makes a damn good one. I can't wait until he's re-elected in November.

[rbohm]

Originally posted by RBatson
There is one question I'd like to ask though.. How is it that the 'liberal media', I've heard so much about, is allowed to keep spewing out all these 'lies' when they are owned by conservatives??

sorry but ted turner, who started, and owns a large part of cnn, is far from conservative. in fact he is as liberal as jane fonda. why do you think cnn is losing viewership to the fox news network? i can tell you, people are sick and tired of the liberal slant on the news, they want far and balanced reporting, and fox news gives them far more of what they want than cnn ever can. also look at some of the news anchors, dan rather, cokie roberts, and many others are so liberal, they make some hard line communists, like stalin and other russia leaders, look rather moderate.

[rbohm]

if you think kerry would be a good president here are a few things to ponder;

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/04/030.html

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/04/025.html

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/04/048.html

[rbohm]

a few more points to ponder;

if what kerry said under oath to congress about his actions in vietnam are true, then why isnt he in jail convicted as a war criminal and for crimes against humanty? and if what he said was false, then why wasnt he convicted for perjury? kerry loses both ways here.

also regarding alternative fuels like alcohol, have oyu been around the race track when alcohol cars are running? if not then let me tell you that it can be an eye watering experience. if you have then multiply the experience with all the cars that are driven in your area(an if you live in LA, san francisco, new york, chicago, st louis, etc. i pity you.

[RBatson]

I'm going to try to keep this brief, I don't enjoy politics as you do, Jim.

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Rick, here's a clue for you to ponder. First: the price of crude oil that you mentioned has dropped again. Second, the price of gas at the local station's pump comes from crude purchased many months ago. While many gasoline suppliers do jack up the price whenever possible, the lowering cost of retail gasoline simply reflects the lowered cost of the gas to suppliers. It's not a deep, dark conspiracy, as you infer and you're doing so is rather naive.

False statement. First of all, at the time you made this statement the price was the highest it had ever been, it has dropped alittle since then(its still high). I find it amusing that you stated, months ago, that the high price of gas was a direct consequence of the higher oil prices and now you contradict that. It does not take months for the oil price to affect gas prices. It may take 2-4 weeks and sometimes it is immediate, retail stores charge what it will cost to replace inventory, not what it cost them originally. You are right that it depends on the gas suppliers and that is what I have a hard time understanding.


Spare me! Windmills have been tried and failed as a source of energy becuase they are unreliable most of the time. Solar has it's own major drawbacks, obviously and ethanol is a boondoggle that makes corn farmers rich but has environmental drawbacks and requires more energy to produce than it saves. These flawed energy 'alternatives' have been around for decades and the Democrats have nothing new to add here, just political rhetoric.

BS! http://greenenergyohio.org/default.c...iew&PageID=805 , http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/solar.html I'm not saying they can completely replace oil but they can help conserve it and make us less dependent on oil. www.MotherEarthNews.com
Now I'm not a hippy but I do think we could be a little more conservative and use our heads. Did you know that we could use the Earth's tilt to our advantage? You can build a home so that a tile floor gets sunlight, in the winter, and it helps keep your house warm. Your water heater can be warmed by the sun. You can get warmth by cutting a hole in the roof and placing a box with a glass lid, cut aluminum cans, paint the inside of the box black and place it over the hole (with a hole to match the roof). I found this stuff intriguing when I was a kid.




ANWAR is a large frozen tundra in a near-uninhabited section of Alaska and drilling on a tiny portion of it won't do anything or anyone any harm, environmentally or otherwise. The Caribou don't seem to mind and the Alaskan natives don't mind (they've said so, to congress) and we could use the oil but no, a handful of environmental whackos with more concern for frozen dirt than the American people and their welfare - when it comes to energy - block ANWAR drilling while patting themselves on the back for how 'sensitive' they are. Yet folks like you get all upset when gas prices go up because we have to depend so haevily (60%) on 'foreign oil'. Go figure.

People like me?!? You mean people with gasoline engines?? What a politian you are, Jim, now you are making me out to be the bad guy. We don't have to be so dependent on oil to start with...

I'm not familiar with ANWAR because I'm not an activist but I'm sure I can find other examples besides what you are talking about. What makes the oil companies any better than anyone else?? The Caribou don't own the land so why ask them?? I'm not going to go looking this stuff up but I'm sure it is a national reserve for a reason.

I still don't think Bush is the best man for the job. I don't dislike him but he does things I don't agree with like recently changing overtime laws.. going backwards in my opinion, work more pay less. I don't like the 3 yr work permit for illegal aliens. At the same time I don't like what Clinton did with NAFTA. Anyhow, you are going to have to find someone else to play this game with, I just hate to see all that political propaganda go unchecked. I try not to offend you and its getting harder and harder to do so I'll stop now while we can still talk.

[RBatson]

rbohm, While Charlie Daniels is from this town, I don't value his opinion anymore than anyone else's. I did scanned over the first link you gave and saw something about the UN, I agree with him on that issue. I don't think we should be in the UN either.

As far as Kerry's military service, I'm not concerned with that he said- she said bs. It has been proven that the advertisements you got your info from was taken out of context(dirty politics). He has the records and that is all that matters. I'm not concerned with Bush's military bs either.

If you don't think we should study alternative means of energy then I have to wonder if you don't have some stock in oil.

As far as the media goes.... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

later.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson

I'm going to try to keep this brief, I don't enjoy politics as you do, Jim.

False statement. First of all, at the time you made this statement the price was the highest it had ever been, it has dropped alittle since then(its still high). I find it amusing that you stated, months ago, that the high price of gas was a direct consequence of the higher oil prices and now you contradict that. It does not take months for the oil price to affect gas prices. It may take 2-4 weeks and sometimes it is immediate, retail stores charge what it will cost to replace inventory, not what it cost them originally. You are right that it depends on the gas suppliers and that is what I have a hard time understanding.

I'm not an expert on the machinations of the gas supply in America but I've read that the gas we put in our tanks today came from crude that was produced many months ago, but you could just as well be correct that it comes from crude purchased 2 - 4 weeks ago. I would like to hear from someone in the business with a more solid knowleged of the actual lag time. Until then, I'll be a gentleman and accept your timetable of 2 - 4 weeks. That point being stipulated, I have always maintained that the actual pump price of gasoline is affected by a number of factors, not simply the cost of crude on the world market. In my state (Connecticut) there is a 54-cent state tax plus the standard 18-cent federal tax on every gallon of gas sold. So, the gas I just paid $1.92 per gallon to put into my tank actually cost $1.20, which is quite reasonable and far less than our fathers paid, 30 or 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. I also note that gas prices have fallen the past few months, as they oftenn do because - again - it's a cyclical market and always has been.

Spare me! BS!

I'm not saying they can completely replace oil but they can help conserve it and make us less dependent on oil. Now I'm not a hippy but I do think we could be a little more conservative and use our heads. Did you know that we could use the Earth's tilt to our advantage? You can build a home so that a tile floor gets sunlight, in the winter, and it helps keep your house warm. Your water heater can be warmed by the sun. You can get warmth by cutting a hole in the roof and placing a box with a glass lid, cut aluminum cans, paint the inside of the box black and place it over the hole (with a hole to match the roof). I found this stuff intriguing when I was a kid.

Rick, you're tilting at windmills here. (I couldn't resist).

Seriously, though, I can give you as many articles that clearly show windmil-power as energy-inefficient and not a realistic alternative as you can post pro-windmill pieces. I think the proof lies in the fact that they have not been used much, except as experimental efforts, and they are generally shown to be simply not feasible. One such article I read stated:

Wind power is a much dispersed power source. It gives a comparatively small amount of energy in relation to its volume. Energy has to be concentrated from a large surface. The force of the winds in the area must be just right; not too weak (or it does not produce enough) and not too strong (the wind mill shuts down). Therefore, those few areas that have winds that meet these conditions must be developed extensively. Even the windmills themselves are still not that efficient. A medieval windmill had an energy efficiency of 17 percent, while a modern one is barely 50 percent -- with some of percentage lost in the storage of energy.

If windmills were a feasible alternative - even a partial alternative - to what we have now, they would have begun to prove that by this late date. They haven't.

Of course we can always do more and find ways to conserve but I've seen studies that show conservation will only make a 10% impact - at best - in our energy demands. We are a very technically advanced nation of almost 300 millions people on a large landmass. We need a lot of energy. Solar, wind and so on is fine but nowhere close to a solution to our energy demand realities.

People like me?!? You mean people with gasoline engines?? What a politian you are, Jim, now you are making me out to be the bad guy. We don't have to be so dependent on oil to start with...

I'm not familiar with ANWAR because I'm not an activist but I'm sure I can find other examples besides what you are talking about. What makes the oil companies any better than anyone else?? The Caribou don't own the land so why ask them?? I'm not going to go looking this stuff up but I'm sure it is a national reserve for a reason.

'ANWAR' is supposed to be an enviromental paradise, according to the tree-hugger crowd, but it's basically a barren no-mans-land, hardly inhabited. Modern oil-drilling techniques would hardly disturb the place and no one would notice if they did. Not even the suddenly-sacred Caribou. The whole silly flap is just a power-play by the environmentalist whackos who want to pretend it's still 1704 and keep America 'pristine'. These are the folks who fight logging interests and won't allow roads to be built in forests. Then, when a fire breaks out, firetrucks have no way to get to the scene. They won't allow underbrush to be cut, then the brush dries out and huge fires ensue. They call a man's backyard with a puddle in it a 'wetland' and get laws passed that forbid the property owner from reconfiguring his back yard property to a level stste so he might actually use it. Those folks.

I still don't think Bush is the best man for the job. I don't dislike him but he does things I don't agree with like recently changing overtime laws.. going backwards in my opinion, work more pay less. I don't like the 3 yr work permit for illegal aliens. At the same time I don't like what Clinton did with NAFTA. Anyhow, you are going to have to find someone else to play this game with, I just hate to see all that political propaganda go unchecked. I try not to offend you and its getting harder and harder to do so I'll stop now while we can still talk.

President Bush has liberated two countries, thwarted the Islamic terrorist organizations and delivered on his tax cut promise...and a lot more. He deserves re-election.

As for finding it 'hard' to be civil with me: I'm an opinionated guy, as you should know. I'm also civil with those who post civilly to me, as you have, making our exchange fairly enjoyable, for me. In politics, I know what I believe and why. If you don't want to be rebutted, don't post. If you do post to refute some of my contentions, which is fine, do expect an argument when one is warranted. Whatever you do, don't post and then complain if I respond with a challenge of your opinion. The exchange of ideas and opinions is what this board is about, Rick. I'm glad to have been able to share a few of mine with you, and vice versa.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

As far as Kerry's military service, I'm not concerned with that he said- she said bs. It has been proven that the advertisements you got your info from was taken out of context(dirty politics). He has the records and that is all that matters. I'm not concerned with Bush's military bs either.

Let me jump in here to say I basically agree. We can never know what really happened on the Mekong River in Viet Nam 35 years ago and to make this the focal point of a campaign for president is ridiculous. However, it was Kerry who has made his military service a big issue and he had to expect other Viet Nam vets would respond to it. I'm more interested in whhat Kerry did in 1971, when he trashed the military men serving in Viet Nam as a bunch of 'war criminals' committing daily atrocities on Vietnamese civilians. Something he has never proven and yet never apologized for saying, either. I think that is why so many vets hate his guts, and I can't say that I blame them. Guys suffered as POW's and never said what Kerry did about the American military in Viet Nam. John Kerry should be ashamed of himself. That he isn't, speaks volumes.

As far as the media goes.... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

Not so fast, Rick.

That article says the following:

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues.

Stop right there. That's just nonsense. Ever hear of Enron, Aldelphia,, Martha Stewart? You sure have, because the media never stopped covering them...and many other corporate scandals. The media covers corporate malfeasance throughly. To deny that, as this article tries to do, is simply sophistry. Local TV stations often have a 'consumer' editor who does consumer-related pieces and labor always get's it's side of the story aired in all the newscasts I've seen. This article is simply hogwash.

Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news.

Now this is getting really absurd.

Journalists are heavily liberal in their politics and have been polled as such for years. 'Centerists', indeed! The only 'economic' issue journalists are more 'conservative' on is the issue of tax cuts, which liberals see as 'favoring the rich', no matter how much the reality says otherwise.

On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

What a manifest distortion of the truth!

The 'Fairness Doctrine' squelched free speech rights by keeping anyone but liberal network newsmen, like Walter Cronkite, from telling us what they wanted us to hear; that is: editing the news with their 'liberal' slant. There were very few 'conservative' voices on talk radio (which couldn't cover politics) or anywhere on TV. Williiam F. Buckley was a notable, but almost lone exception with his 'Firing Line' TV discussion show that centered on politics. Finally, in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 'Fairness Doctrine' as unconstitional, which it certainly was. That opened the door for talk radio and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who has been a dominate force for conservative thought ever since. He has many imitators and they all do very well, financially. Question: Why is that? Answer: Because they appeal to the wide base of Americans who are conservative in most political issues. They never had a voice in the liberal-dominated mass media of TV and radio. Now they do...and the liberals hate it. They especially hate the loss of their 'Bully Pulpit' that restricted conservatives to the fringe and gave the public one point of view only: the liberal POV. That's over, now.

You bet conservatives oppose any whiff of trying to revive the mis-named 'Fairness Doctrine'. There are plenty of liberal outlets, like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, plus the three big networks that still dominate the airwaves. Conservatives have FOXNEWS and talk radio. Liberals have tried to get a 'liberal' talk radio network going, to no avail. It flopped. See, Americans can get all the liberal slant on the news they need every night on the CBS, NBC or ABC newscasts. The conservative talk radio shows draw a big audience and thus, many high-paying sponsors. People want to hear what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and all the others have to say. It's called 'the Free Market', something liberals never understand or accept. That's why they want the 'Fairness Doctrine' restored. Liberalism only works in a very controlled media environment, as it was before 1988. Once liberals have to battle their ideas on the open 'market', they fail...and then they whine about ti and write ridiculous little articles like the one linked by RBatson, which you may now safely ignore.

You're welcome.

[RBatson]

ROFLMAO!!

I just realized something Jim. Why the hell do I need an opinion? You can just give me yours. Unfortuately the rest of us don't have the liberty of knowing everything.

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Yes, Rick: 'WMD" (Weapons of Mass Destruction) would include nuclear missiles. Theocratic, Islam-dominated Iran is a major threat to the region and ultimately, the U.S. if and when (it's just a matter of time) they possess nuclear capabilities. The president and all Americans have a right to be concerned about this. We want the terrorist-supporting Arab nations to be 'afraid' of being attacked. It's called 'deterrence' and it worked fairly well with the old U.S.S.R. for over 50 years. If you feel safe ignoring that reality then it's a false sense of security, my friend.

Oh, 'deterrence'. I never saw that before Jim, how enlightening. Exactly which country did we invade to deter Russia?

Oh and if solar power is so complicated and unfeasible then why does the government give low interest loans so folks can buy them?
Passive Solar Heating, Cooling and Daylighting
Buildings designed for passive solar and daylighting incorporate design features such as large south-facing windows and building materials that absorb and slowly release the sun's heat. No mechanical means are employed in passive solar heating. Incorporating passive solar designs can reduce heating bills as much as 50 percent. Passive solar designs can also include natural ventilation for cooling.

That article I gave the link to said that 2 windmills were enough to power 785 homes.. what a joke, huh? I'm not saying windmills are the wave of the future, which they may be, (but solar seems more logical) all I'm saying is that alternative sources should be explored.

Let this be a lesson to me for getting involved in political/religious discussion. I was warned the extremely conservative were close minded to anything but thier views.

[mustangII460]

Sorry, I had to play my Duo card!

[rbohm]

Originally posted by RBatson
Oh and if solar power is so complicated and unfeasible then why does the government give low interest loans so folks can buy them?
Passive Solar Heating, Cooling and Daylighting
Buildings designed for passive solar and daylighting incorporate design features such as large south-facing windows and building materials that absorb and slowly release the sun's heat. No mechanical means are employed in passive solar heating. Incorporating passive solar designs can reduce heating bills as much as 50 percent. Passive solar designs can also include natural ventilation for cooling.

That article I gave the link to said that 2 windmills were enough to power 785 homes.. what a joke, huh? I'm not saying windmills are the wave of the future, which they may be, (but solar seems more logical) all I'm saying is that alternative sources should be explored.

the only real problem with solar power is that the solar panels, expeciallt the ones for generating electricty, are too inefficient at this point to be fesible economically. as for wind power, if it were true that 2 windmills could power 785 homes(i doubt that), then why was california having problems with the electicity in that state? surely the windmill farms they have could generate enough electricity to keep southern california from browning out during peak power demand. wel unitll you consider the fact that windmills only generate about 1% of california's electrical energy needs. there really isnt enough space in california to build enough windmills to generate enough power to keep california going. i have seen the windmill farms off I-10 in cali, and i can tell you that about 1/2 of htem were not turing, even in a fairly stiff wind(about 30mph), and the ones that were turing were not turning very quickly. so for the forseeabl future wind power doesnt get it. solar on the other hand only needs the right break through to make solar cells more efficient for generating electricity, and i think that isnt far off.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

ROFLMAO!!

I just realized something Jim. Why the hell do I need an opinion? You can just give me yours. Unfortuately the rest of us don't have the liberty of knowing everything.

I pay close attention to and study political issues, Rick. I then form considered opinions on what I learn. I post those opinions here and elsewhere, so that they have a voice. I don't expect everyone who reads my posts to automatically agree with everything I state. Nor should you expect the same for your opinions. When you make definitive statements and take 'stands' then you should fully expect to be challenged. I do. Why shouldn't you? If you cannot deal with that it's not my problem but perhaps you might want to reconsider continued posting on political issues.

Oh, 'deterrence'. I never saw that before Jim, how enlightening. Exactly which country did we invade to deter Russia?

We challenged the U.S.S.R. by having more and better missiles than they did. President Reagan then went further and not only deployed missiles to Europe in a direct confrontation with the U.S.S.R. (who had deployed their missiles to eastern europe) but also began SDI, a ballistic missile defense system that the near-bankrupt communist society of the U.S.S.R. could not match. Gorbachev knew it because President Reagan told him so in a summit meeting in Iceland in '86. Within months, the U.S.S.R. backed down, removed many of there nuclear missiles from eastern europe and stopped demanding that we dismantle our SDI program. Less than three years later, the U.S.S.R., still under Gorbachev, dissolved.

Of course, the major difference between Iran and the old U.S.S.R. is that, unlike the well-organized U.S.S.R., Iran is a rogue nation, run by unstable, hostile Islamic fundamentalist mullas who are a major force for terrorism (funding, arming) and must be considered a major foe of the U.S., as they have been since they kidnapped our embassy employees in 1979. By the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein and the democratization of that once-repressive nation, the U.S. has shown that we have the capability and the will to destroy a regime - any regime - that threatens our national security; whether with missiles, biological or chemical weapons or anything else they can dream up. Also, having a democratic Arab nation next to Iran can't do us any harm and it gives us an excellent military base, allowing the U.S. to withdraw out forces from our dubious 'ally': Saudi Arabia.

Oh and if solar power is so complicated and unfeasible then why does the government give low interest loans so folks can buy them?

Because solar power helps conserve energy, no argument, but not in a way that can ever come close to replacing oil. As I've stipulated: alternative energy sources such as wind and solar are nice and help a bit but don't come close to being anything that will replace oil as a fuel for power in the U.S. or the developed world.

That article I gave the link to said that 2 windmills were enough to power 785 homes.. what a joke, huh? I'm not saying windmills are the wave of the future, which they may be, (but solar seems more logical) all I'm saying is that alternative sources should be explored.

That rosy '785 homes' figure assumes enough wind to make the power needed on a schedule you can count on. Highly unlikely. Look, I agree that we might need to look at alternative fuel sources but so far, wind and solar haven't cut it. If you want to build a solar-powered home, be my guest. For now, I'll pass and just go with natural gas or oil for my heat and power.

Let this be a lesson to me for getting involved in political/religious discussion. I was warned the extremely conservative were close minded to anything but thier views.

No, Rick: let this be a lesson to you that when you make statements and post political comments on a nationally-seen messageboard, there just might be others reading it that, (a) disagree, (b) can articulate their disagreement and, (c) are more than willing to do so. If you don't like that, you might reconsider your definition of 'narrow-minded'. You can do that by simply looking in the mirror.

[CupCake]

I hope I was able to vote. My vote will go to Bush, Why? Because as a women I think all this right to choose is simple crap, nobody has the right to take an innocent life away just because you feel like it, so democrats say that is ok to kill an innocent baby but it is NOT ok to kill somebody that is a criminal by the death penalty, I don't think that is right, it doesn't make any sense.

[rbohm]

Originally posted by CupCake
I hope I was able to vote. My vote will go to Bush, Why? Because as a women I think all this right to choose is simple crap, nobody has the right to take an innocent life away just because you feel like it, so democrats say that is ok to kill an innocent baby but it is NOT ok to kill somebody that is a criminal by the death penalty, I don't think that is right, it doesn't make any sense.

exactly, the problem with liberalism is it doesnt require personal responsibility. liberals will tell you that people are not responsible for what they do, blame it on environment, genes, whatever, and let all of society take the blame for a few peoples actions. abortion is just one problem. liberals always seem to look at america when someone else decides to hate us and attack us, rather than look at the people who did the attacks. it has to stop, people HAVE to take responsibility for what they say and do. if that means raising a child because you couldnt wait to have sex, spending your life in prison because you cant make the effort to stay straight and not continue to steal from other people, or be executed because you committed murder, then so be it.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by CupCake :

I hope I was able to vote. My vote will go to Bush, Why? Because as a women I think all this right to choose is simple crap, nobody has the right to take an innocent life away just because you feel like it, so democrats say that is ok to kill an innocent baby but it is NOT ok to kill somebody that is a criminal by the death penalty, I don't think that is right, it doesn't make any sense.

If you are not a U.S. citizen you cannot vote in a federal (presidential) election...but you may vote in local and state elections.

Your views on abortion 'right's' and the death penalty are a welcome breath of fresh air, coming from a woman and an immigrant who appreciates the United States as many native-born American, sadly, do not. I agree that killing an unborn baby in it's mother's womb - which should be safest place on earth for that baby - is a monsterous act that far too many women use as a form of birth control in this country. As 'rbohm' stated: personal responsibility must be returned as the status quo in America. The 'victim mentality' ideology of the political left is simply an excuse for failure, usually based on a lack of responsible behavior. The Democrat/liberal ideology that allows too many people to be indolent and irresponsible is hurting our nation, which is why I speak out against it on this and other internet forums.

The death penalty is a punishment used in 38 states. Each state decides the issue - there is no federal death penalty - and it's used with caution, after many appeals and many hearings that usually take years, sometimes 10 or more years, before the convicted murderer is actually executed. While some past murder convictions have been problematic, most are not and the convicted murderer's guilt is clear-cut. That Democrats protest the death penalty and sometimes work for the release of murderers while casually condemning innocent unborn babies to death in the womb as a 'woman's right' is a dichotomy that I have been never been able to understand.

I expect that it has to do with the fact that supporting abortion 'rights' (what about the unborn child's rights?) allows a woman to avoid the consequences of having sexual relations and, in the case of opposing the death penalty, allowing murderers to avoid the ultimate consequences of murder. Thus, we come full circle and see that avoiding personal responsibility is the hallmark of Democrat/liberal ideology, along with wealth distribution and other discredited socialist schemes that have failed miserably elsewhere, for generations.

Cupcake, we're pleased to have you as a member of our country (and MustangWorks) and I personally applaud your clear-thinking and support for President George W. Bush, a decent man doing a good job against heavy opposition. Although you may not be able to vote (if you have not obtained U.S. citizenship as yet) in this presidential election, your heart (and your political sympathies) are definitely in the right place. I hope you'll spread your enthusiasm to all you meet that may still be undecided as to how to vote on November 2nd. President Bush is in a tough fight with most of media and some powerful forces arrayed against him but with enough energized folks like you on his side, he'll win. When he does, we'll all be better off and you'll know that you did what you could for what you thought was right, just as President Bush is doing.