Bend Over For George Bush
Joe
Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
December 28th, the price of gas is expected to rise to $4, not a single
person has been prosecuted for the billions of dollars that were stolen
from Californians by the energy companies...and now your every move is
going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!
Welcome to the Fifth Reich! Heil Bush!
Bend over, folks, the nightmare has just begun.
With apologies to Robert Hunter: If Osama don't get you, then Bush &
Ashcroft and John Poindexter will!
Yow. I feel like I died and went to hell!
Joe
LISURFER1228
Once again.
I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the north east brake away
from these inbreed idiots and start our own country.
Is it too late?
Joe
Chronicle
Axis of Oil and Iraq
by Maria Elena Martinez and Joshua Karliner
There are connections between Iraq and Enron that should not be
overlooked: The pounding of war drums drowns out the sound of
handcuffs as they lock around American business leaders' wrists. And
the heady rush of patriotism helps mask the hangover of a bubble
economy gone bust.
We're not saying that President Bush's call to attack Iraq is strictly
a sleight of hand to distract the American public from the domestic
problems plaguing his presidency. Many complex historical and
political layers have brought us to where we are today. But at a
minimum, the looming war with Iraq presents the opportunity for Bush
to duck the corporate scandals and reframe the national debate.
At today's political crossroads, we should be discussing key issues:
greater corporate accountability; how to build a more just global
economic order; and, for national security, how to kick the oil habit
while fostering environmentally sound renewable energy.
Instead, we seem to be at the edge of a downward spiral of war,
terrorism and the evisceration of our democratic rights. Why are we
taking such risks? One thing is patently obvious, a little
three-letter word: oil.
Invading Iraq and taking over its oil fields is the logical yet insane
extension of the Bush administration's foreign policy. For instance,
Bush's attempted unilateralism with regard to attacking Iraq (he has
only begrudgingly included the U.N. Security Council) is thoroughly
consistent with the unilateralism he exhibited when he pulled out of
the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
By bailing on Kyoto, Bush, at the behest of the oil industry, dropped
out of a treaty designed to save us from the mass destruction of
climate change by moving the world away from fossil fuels and toward
clean energy. And if he invades Iraq, Bush further entrenches the
deadly connection between U.S. interests and oil interests.
Sitting at the apex of world power, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
form an axis of oil with the industry. President Bush comes from a
family with long and deep connections to petroleum companies. Prior to
becoming vice president, Cheney headed Halliburton Co., which
describes itself as "one of the world's largest providers of products
and services to the petroleum and energy industries."
Time and again, be it in Alaska or Indonesia, Bush and Cheney have
demonstrated their proclivity to prioritize oil interests over human
rights and the environment. Indeed, Vice President Cheney's Energy
Task Force, after consulting with many CEOs in the energy industry,
defined national security as access to oil.
A U.S. victory in Iraq could, according to the Washington Post, "open
a bonanza for American oil companies long banished" from that country.
This would provide more direct U.S. access to the largest oil reserves
in the world next to Saudi Arabia's; that, in turn, could break the
back of OPEC, while providing a coveted prize for Bush and Cheney's
American and British oil company friends.
But such "success" in Iraq -- in addition to the huge toll in
immediate human casualties -- will also seriously undermine national
and global security.
One of the ways it will do so will be to lock the world further into
energy consumption patterns that broad scientific consensus has
determined will deepen global warming and all its impacts. These
include a rise in sea levels, which will displace hundreds of millions
of people; more extreme storms, droughts, famines and floods; and
spreading disease.
In essence, the Bush administration's definition of national security
serves U.S. corporate interests, allowing some to profit and others to
hide. But beyond this, it is not at all clear who else, if anyone,
might benefit.
The United States and the rest of the world would be much better off
if we cracked down on corporate criminals, while taking the billions
of dollars we're set to spend on war and investing them in kicking the
oil habit and transforming our energy systems into environmentally
sound alternatives.
Maria Elena Martinez is executive director of and Joshua Karliner is
senior adviser to CorpWatch, a San Francisco-based organization that
works on corporate accountability issues.
)2002 San Francisco Chronicle
John Bray
"LISURFER1228" wrote
Heeeey, I take offense to that. It's INBRED idiots!
JB
brew ziggins
>
"LISURFER1228" wrote
> Well Said.
> Once again.
> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the
> north east brake away from these inbreed idiots and
> start our own country. Is it too late?
And can the literate people in the northeast break away
from the illiterate people in the northeast and start our
own newsgroup?
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Bartlet.
l bruce higgins ithaca new york
lbh2 at cornell dot edu
Sarandipidy
>December 28th,
my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
sara
the desert's quiet and cleveland's cold, and so the story ends we're told.
pancho needs your prayers, it's true, but save a few for lefty, too-- he only
did what he had to, and now he's growin old.
Mvp8779
>
>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>December 28th
isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
alive and plotting.
MVP
"I try to convey what you strive to condone"
-- quoted credited to "Mr. Trey Antipasta; whom you all love so
dearly"--as introduced by Les Claypool @ Bonnaroo
Joe
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th,
> my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
> house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.
And to think...just 2+ short years ago, under Bill Clinton, the
unemployment rate was negligable, gas was hovering at about $1 a gallon,
the Dow Jones was near 11,000...
And it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
next stop is Baghdad and Afghanistan
Joe
Jim K
>>Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
>>
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th
>
>isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
>many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
>a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
>have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
>alive and plotting.
Maybe he can help OJ find the real killer while he's at it.
Jim K
Joe
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is
>now going to have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and
>his mates who are clearly alive and plotting.
It's been 14 months so far, and Osama's capture is about as likely as
Jerry showing up at the NYE show.
But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
on the American public.
At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
Joe
Frndthdevl
>But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
>on the American public.
>
>At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well? Again, it is my opinion
that democraps should be held more resonsible. It is the republicraps nature to
be big brother, and cave to the pharmeceutical companies. but the demorats
rolled right on over, what ,9 NO votes. What is that all about? Oh, they would
rather be re-elected than vote their
conscience.
JC Martin
news:20021120123604...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
> >
> >Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
> >December 28th
>
> isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially
paralyze
> many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this
slowped of
> a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into
the
> the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now
going to
> have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are
clearly
> alive and plotting.
The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
He's buying time.
-JC
Joe
> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
murder being immoral.
Y'know...you sound like a broken record. No matter what the subject, the
answer is to arm yourself. Maybe it's time for your LSD booster shot.
Joe
RkFast, the Flake slayer
goodbye as they plunge to their deaths from the top of the World Trade
Center.
How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
family from ever having to relive that horror.
Within reason, of course.
Mvp8779
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
He's buying time.
>>
there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact, if we
could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically harmless
(no cash=no threat)
cactusferret
Which is exactly why victims of crimes do not decide the sentences of the
criminals in our judicial system.
cf
Sarandipidy
>family from ever having to relive that horror.
since when is attacking civil rights automatically protection? who judges what
is "in reason"? them??? yeah, that's really smart.
since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off people.
NOT COOL.
JC Martin
> << The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
> going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what
he
> has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
>
> He's buying time.
> >>
>
> there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
> skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact,
if we
> could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
> scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically
harmless
> (no cash=no threat)
I'm not arguing whether or not Sadam should be removed or whether he is
dangerous or not. Personally, I think he is dangerous...just not
necessarily a danger to us *now*. I was just pointing out that the Bush
administration has a lot to work with here in terms of milking the Sadam
issue as for whatever they need it for.
-JC
JYOB
>>family from ever having to relive that horror.
Those who trade freedom for security get neither.
TOG
Nate C.
Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
Darren E. Mason
news:20021120170033...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off
people.
> NOT COOL.
How is it being "taken away"? My understanding is that the benefits are
running out according to either (a) the usual timetable of 26 weeks or (b)
the extended time table of 26 weeks + 13 weeks (via the Oct 2002 act of
congress for states hit by heavy unemployment (>30%) or by 9/11).
What is the substance of your complaint?
DM
Bongo Y. McCongo
I wonder what the price of gas would be if the following externalities
were included: the funding of terrorist organizations such as Al
Qaeda, the military garrisons and occasional military intervention
needed to keep said oil flowing, damage to the environment from oil
drilling and transport, and the damage to human health and to the
environment from exhaust pollution.
If all of these externalities were included up front at the pump I
would think that $4 per gallon would be a bargain. One might say a
rip off, even.
Ray
Joe
> And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> family from ever having to relive that horror.
But, but, but...with Osama bin Laden still still at large, how has your
government protected you exactly?
By killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan? By letting the
energy companies off the hook for their colusion, price-fixing and
conspiracy to rape the citizens of California? By refusing to extend
unemployment benefits?
How exactly has your government protected you?
Joe
Garry Bryan
: Within reason, of course.
I think the conflict is "Just what is a reasonable reaction to the fact
some people may want to cuase us harm?" Taking away the things that make
the US the beacon of freedom may not be the best way, but if we change the
entire character of the nation maybe that will stop folks from hating us.
Garry
Garry Bryan
:> Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends
Well, if we don't have it then nobody can!!
Garry
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddbc...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Sarandipidy <saran...@aol.compostpile> wrote:
> >>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits
on
> >>December 28th,
>
> > my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell
his
> > house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
>
> With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
> of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
> rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
> extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.
But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddbe...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Frndthdevl <frndt...@aol.comdown> wrote:
>
> > If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
>
> Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
> pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
> something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
> murder being immoral.
I don't even own a gun, but I sure can picture myself killing another human
being. Sure, it's "not quite right," but if somebody's going to try to kill
me, I'd have no problem killing them.
Timothy Lynch
} But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
What year do you live in?
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4LRC9.49817$Ik.12...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Iraq is already setting themselves up to kick out the inspectors. Today, I
heard a radio report that Iraq has stated that they are fine with the
inspectors, unless the inspectors start "collecting intelligence." They can
say that any time they want.
Jon
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
Kinda like gun control, huh?
John Doherty
> --
> To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
> "Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
In article <s_VC9.39645$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, JBgoode
<jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Kinda like gun control, huh?
>
Actually, no, not at all. Gun Control is (at least in part) about
removing your "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction (uzi),
something Bush is keen to do to Saddam, if not the ones who really have
them, North Korea.
it is about restricting the right to bear arms to non-criminals and the
non-insane.
I feel a lot less free knowing any idiot can purschase a submachine
gun....
JD
Toad The Dead Vegan
You left out the additional, additional 13 weeks received by people in
certain states favored by Congress.
There are people who have been receiving unemployment benefits for an
entire year.
TDV
Vinlandr
> and now your every move is
> going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!
Don't bet on it. Bush doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights,
including the Second Amendment.
Vinlandr
> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...
You're as ignorant as most Republicans.
Both California Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, voted for the
Fatherland Security Bill.
Check the rest of the "yea" roster.
Vinlandr
> Only two more years with this slowped of a President...
Do you really believe there will be elections in 2004?
Kelly Humphries
> But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php
House Membership
Party Divisions
223 Republicans
208 Democrats
1 Independent
3 Vacancies
Senate Membership
Party Divisions
49 Republicans
49 Democrats
2 Independent
Page last modified: November 19, 2002
Darren E. Mason
"Vinlandr" <vinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae6303f.02112...@posting.google.com...
> lisurf...@aol.com (LISURFER1228) wrote:
>
> > I blame the south and the bible belt for this...
>
> You're as ignorant as most Republicans.
....or that statement.
DM
.
Darren E. Mason
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021120...@grace.speakeasy.net...
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:
>
> > But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
>
> From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php
>
<membership snipped>
Most likely he meant the Senate which is in the hands of the Dems through
the end
of the lame duck session (due to Jeffords aligning with the Dems and Barkley
remaining
independent).
DM
Roger
> family from ever having to relive that horror.
Your government scares the hell out of me.
Roger
dndphishin
">
> My prediction is after Iraq, the next major military offensive is in
> South America. It will be in the name of freedom and democracy against
> leftists and terrorists. Only cynics like me will think it is about oil,
> other natural resources and mmmm... cheap labor.
>
I'm not so sure....I figure it goes like this:
Iraq
Iran
North Korea will be "on the table" for 2004 "elections" under the campaign
message "They Got Nukes, folks"! Nothing like fear to win an election.
I do see the South American issue in the more distant future - especially if
GWB wins in 2004. I figure that the North Korea "nucular" issue would serve
as a much better vehicle (from the Bush perspective) to scare the hell out
of people vs. South American drugs - but then again, who knows what deeds
GWB will accuse South America of after a future 9-11?
Jperdue4
This is what happened last time we went in, iraq said NO SPIES!!...We
said.."sure"....then we sent spies in, they caught us and kicked us out....WE
lied not saddam.....I cant wait till another country attacks us for
having....."weapons of mass destruction"....lol.....
Jperdue4
>
>> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
>
>Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
>pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
>something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
>murder being immoral.
>
>answer is to arm yourself. Maybe it's time for your LSD booster shot.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pointing a gun at someone raping your daughter would be terrible....
Jperdue4
>removing your "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction (uzi),
congratulations, youve been brainwashed....using the term "weapons of mass
destruction " proves it. This term was drummed up to illicit a certain emotinal
response from you. And it seems to have worked....I refuse to use the
term.....its sorta like..."assault rifle"....no such thing...
Jperdue4
I agree and this is why i own a gun for personal protection....
Jperdue4
this is great actually. I would like to see it around 6 bucks a gallon.Maybe we
could then get some action on the solar tip......:)...I believe that one day
all cars and vehicles will run on solar power . All homes and buildings will
run on solar.....The sun runs our entire galaxy, i dont see why it couldnt
power a light bulb...
Jperdue4
>
>> Only two more years with this slowped of a President...
>
>Do you really believe there will be elections in 2004?
>
>
>
>
>
>
get used to it, bush will be re elected in a landslide.....
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Kelly Humphries" <kpi...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021120...@grace.speakeasy.net...
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:
>
> > But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
I meant Senate.
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Timothy Lynch" <tly...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:arh9uj$1b3h$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> "JBgoode" <jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> } But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
>
> What year do you live in?
This year, and I meant the Senate.
kurt
> >And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> >family from ever having to relive that horror.
>
> is "in reason"? them??? yeah, that's really smart.
> since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off people.
> NOT COOL.
>
I know two people who were laid off. They haven't done *anything* to
find a new job. They are riding on unemployment. Once it's over, they
will look for a new job. It cuts both ways.
Kurt
JC Martin
JC Martin
news:3ddc07f4$0$1413$272e...@news.execpc.com...> Are you sure you're not misunderestimating him? Billions of pork barrell
> and patronage are flowing to those who are "loyal."
>
> Besides saving the world with things like the department of homeland
> security will take forever to do, certainly more than two years. The
> same hue and cry will be going on in two years - make the world safe for
> freedom loving peoples...
>
> > I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
> > the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now
going to
> > have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are
clearly
> > alive and plotting.
>
> soon as a WMD is found.
>
> One way or another, the US is going to take over Iraq, dole out the oil
> fields as "reparations" or some such and then lack the courage and will
> it would take to rule the region and try and set up some peaceful,
> semi-democratic government for the benefit of the inhabitants.
>
> If they have to, Mossad or the CIA will lob something into Israel.
The CIA? *LOL* Get real Jon.
-JC
TitanTim
> Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends
> goodbye as they plunge to their deaths from the top of the World Trade
> Center.
>
>
> How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
> family from ever having to relive that horror.
>
>
Slipper Slope, that "within reason" comment...
He who would give up his freedom for his safety deserves neither....
TitanTim
Any government scares the hell out of me...
Joe
> Pointing a gun at someone raping your daughter would be terrible....
Hey. Walking down the street, minding your own business, and getting
murdered by some bozo with a handgun would be terrible too.
The murder rate in America isn't merely terrible; it's an abomination with
11,000 innocent victims lying dead on the streets of America...every year,
year after year, decade after decade.
And, if you can't see that, something is very, very wrong...
To me, you pro-gun folks come off just like Beavis and Butt-head, with a
"heh, heh, guns are kewl."
Joe
Nate C.
> > > How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
> > > And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> > > family from ever having to relive that horror.
> > >
> > >
> > > Within reason, of course.
> >
> > Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
>
> Kinda like gun control, huh?
No. There are certain things that people are generally too stupid to be
allowed to have. Certain types of chemicals come to mind. Guns could
arguably go into this category as well.
Jperdue4
"FALLS"...lol...should we outlaw cars and stairs?..."Gunviolence" is higher in
those cities and states with strict gun control laws....this is true in every
case.....
http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/facts_you_can_use.htm#Firearms:
Firearm Use In Violent Crime: More significantly, despite the fact the number
of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase
from 1997 to 1998, the F.B.I. also reported:
Decrease in Firearm Murders: In 1997, of the 15,837 murders as to which the
type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I., 10,729 were committed with
firearms; in 1998, 14,088 murders in which the type of weapon used was known,
9,143 were committed with firearms.
Decrease in Rate of Firearm Murders: Thus, the rate of firearms used to commit
murders decreased from 67.8 percent (of murders in which the type of weapon
used was known to the F.B.I.) in 1997, to 64.9 percent in 1998.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (total numbers): Extrapolating these rates
to the total number of murders in 1998 (as opposed to just the murders in which
the type of weapon used was known), 10,977 of the total 16,914 murders
apparently involved the use of firearms, and 5,937 involved other types of
weapons.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (rate per 100,000): In 1998, there were 4.1
(per 100,000 population) murders involving the use of firearms, and 2.2 (per
100,000) murders involving weapons other than firearms.
[Note: it is instructive to compare the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. to
the total murder rates in those countries which have strict gun control; e.g.,
Japan, where the total murder rate of .6 per 100,000 is about one quarter of
the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. This proves that the absence of
firearms does not lead to lower murder rates. Click here to examine these
data.]
Knives--Increased Usage: By contrast, the FBI also reports that the percentage
of murders involving knives is on the rise. Knives were used in 13.3 percent of
the murders committed in the United States in 1998 as compared to 12.7 percent
of murders in 1994.
Decrease in Use of Firearms in Robberies: The rate of firearms used to commit
robberies decreased from 39.7 in 1997 to 38.2 in 1998.
Please click here to view the F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports.
Murder Rate and Firearms
As reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, according
to the F.B.I., the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to
19,645--from 1993 to 1996. There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.
The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per
100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)
Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994 by
as much as 2.5 million per year, while, as shown above, the murder rate
decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to
higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World
Report)
In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders,
but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S. Of these, 15,551, or
69 percent, involved the use of a firearm. The percentage of firearms-related
homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994. By 1998, the rate of firearms use
in murder was down to 64.9 (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident
Facts; F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports)
In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death.
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
>To me, you pro-gun folks come off just like Beavis and Butt-head, with a
>"heh, heh, guns are kewl."
>
>Joe
To me, you come off as one of those "SIEG HEIL!!" guys...heh heh heh...
RkFast, the Flake slayer
The War Over the War
It will be interesting to see how the debate over civil liberties and
the war on terror plays out now that the electorate has given
President Bush such a vote of confidence. Since Sept. 11, the left has
pitched fits about military commissions, alleged attorney-client
privilege infringements, telephone taps, surveillance of suspected
terrorists, fingerprinting and photographing of some foreign visitors,
and particularly round-ups of visa violators. Each of these measures
has been met with loud objections from liberals who are convinced that
the Bush administration is on the verge of creating a police state.
Others see the world differently. Instead of an out-of-control
government behemoth spying on you and me in complete disregard for
civil liberties, they see our domestic and foreign intelligence
services as defanged watchdogs, powerless to detect or stop terrorism
after decades of liberal "reforms."
No one, least of all a conservative concerned about government power,
should take civil liberties protection lightly. But the liberal
reforms of the past generation have gone way beyond protecting the
privacy rights of American citizens -- they've protected the ability
of international terrorists to function in this country virtually
unimpeded. Everyone now knows that FBI agent Colleen Rowley pleaded
with her superiors for permission to inspect the computer of Zacharias
Moussaoui, only to be told that she lacked "probable cause." If
investigators had searched that laptop, they would have found the name
and phone number of one the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 plot.
This bit of recent history is raised to imply that the FBI screwed up
in August 2001. Yet when the suggestion is made that perhaps the
"probable cause" standard be brought down a notch, say to "reasonable
suspicion," the civil-liberties types go ballistic. When the Justice
Department interviewed several thousand men from Arab nations, The New
York Times decried the "vast roundup" and the American Civil Liberties
Union shrilled that this "dragnet approach ... is likely to magnify
concerns of racial and ethnic profiling. In fact, as Professor Robert
Turner of the University of Virginia Law School relates, interviewees
were treated politely and asked, among other things, whether they had
encountered any acts of bigotry.
Before Sept. 11, and thanks to a process of emasculization stretching
back to the Church committee hearings of the 1970s, the FBI and CIA
were forbidden to share information. Even within the FBI, thanks to
"the wall" inaugurated under Attorney General Janet Reno, a
counter-terrorism agent examining a terror cell in Buffalo could not
walk down the hall and chat with a criminal investigator who was
looking into money laundering by the same people. The FBI was
forbidden to conduct general Internet searches, or to visit public
places open to all.
Seventy-five percent of the American people told the Gallup
organization that the Bush administration has not gone too far in
restricting civil liberties. Fifty percent thought they'd gone far
enough, but 25 thought they should have been tougher. Only 11 percent
thought the administration had gone too far.
What liberals are now urging is that suspected terrorists, here or
abroad, be accorded the full panoply of rights we give to ordinary
criminal defendants. But this judicializes war. President Bill Clinton
adhered to this model and accordingly turned down an opportunity to
capture bin Laden because he feared we might not have proper evidence
for a criminal indictment.
But the war powers of the presidency, long respected by the courts,
permit special action in the case of war. Even before Sept. 11, bin
Laden had declared war on the United States and was clearly ineligible
for a criminal trial. He was morally and legally an enemy combatant.
Similarly, though, President Bush has not taken any action since Sept.
11 that was not also approved overwhelmingly by the Congress.
But the key point is this: If we err on the side of civil liberties
instead of on the side of security, hundreds of thousands or millions
of Americans could die. If we err on the side of security, many people
will be inconvenienced and a few individuals may be wrongly imprisoned
for some time. In which direction would you lean?
Atl Bob
> >From: Joe
>
> >But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
> >on the American public.
> >
> >At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
>
> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well? Again, it is my opinion
> that democraps should be held more resonsible. It is the republicraps nature to
> be big brother, and cave to the pharmeceutical companies. but the demorats
> rolled right on over, what ,9 NO votes. What is that all about? Oh, they would
> rather be re-elected than vote their
> conscience.
I am trying to get away from the political stuff on RMGD since
there was just too much of it here recently (TOO shows have solved
some of that fortunately) but I must say I agree with you here. That
Nancy Pelosi woman is now the Minority Leader in the House. She was
one of the only ones who voted against authorizing the use of force in
Iraq without getting sufficient evidence (this was after she was
briefed by the Prez BTW) and now is backtracking saying she will
support it. WTF?? Have some backbone woman! I see Gore is speaking
up some but this "being nice" BS is for the birds. Last thing this
nation needs is a "GOP Lite". We need REAL opposition - one that will
keep these corporate criminals known as Republicans honest. This
bullshit of laying down and playing dead is just wrong.
The Dem Senator here in Georgia (Max Cleland) finally did vote
for Shrub's tax plan only after some of the ludicrous breaks for
billionaires were taken out. You figure the GOP would say "OK Max,
glad you finally saw it our way after some compromise" which is what
politics is all about. Instead they successfully painted this Vietnam
vet who lost his legs in the war and has a notable decent, moderate
voting record as an unpatriotic "liberal". The Dems need to realize
that there is no negotiating with these American Terrorists known as
the Republican Party. They are vicious and will cut you zero slack
even when you agree with them. It isnt about "conservative" vs.
"liberal".....its about getting Republicans in office no matter what
they have to say or do. Then they can let their corporate campaign
contributors pillage this nation along with its savings and
environment. They dont care about you. Its all about them and their
cronies.
The worse example of this is how the GOP will paint a Democrat
like Pelosi or Gore as "unAmerican" when they raise reasonable
concerns about our intervention around the world; but when the Cato
Institute (a noted "libertarian" think-tank) comes out with a white
paper on how our intervention in other nation's business does cause
international resentment that leads to terrorism, the GOP is mum.
Why? Because the Cato guys fall in line with other GOP interests like
putting Social Security $$$ into the stock market. They ONLY attack
the Dems and this is just proof that their only interest is the
destruction of ANY opposition so they can rape this nation. The Dems
better go on the offensive or their ass is history.
Atl Bob
JC Martin
news:arjf8e$hmd$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
A hell of a lot of people are too stupid to be allowed freedom period, yet
we allow those freedoms because are forefathers have deemed it necessary for
our evolution as a nation. So I don't really get your point. Stupidity
shouldn't be a reason to take away a personal freedom.
-JC
JC Martin
news:dda31359.02112...@posting.google.com...
Why fear? Don't be afraid now fer God's sake. This country has decades of
degradation to go through before we become totalitarian. :-)
-JC
Russ
because Jeffords saw what looked like a good opportunity by jumping
from the G.O.P. Well his little plan worked for about 18 months, and
he's likely doomed to obscurity from here on out. Jim Who? Jeffords
What? Vermont Which?
-R-
"JBgoode" <jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<EM6D9.39683$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>...
-mike-
My vote goes to ***Lightning***
ONE!!! lightning bolt has enough energy to power a small
city for a year. Someday there will be viable collection
devices and efficient batteries. Free Power for everybody,
world wide. Think the internet shook up society? You ain't
seen nothing yet.
Now, in my lifetime? I say 64% chance. My kids' lifetime?
90% chance.
-m-
Om Grown
http://www.bellwetherinteractive.com/mdi/index.html
First air powered vehicle. No gasoline, no batteries
Jwin
Grateful Dead and there is all this angry politic nonsense. Lets go
back to the good old day of not caring.
-Jwin
Gggggggg Ggggggggg
Gggggggg Ggggggggg
other drugs, spending 10 years in prison is hell also.
Jperdue4
youre an idiot.....
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddd3...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Jperdue4 <jper...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Pointing a gun at someone raping your daughter would be terrible....
>
> Hey. Walking down the street, minding your own business, and getting
> murdered by some bozo with a handgun would be terrible too.
>
> The murder rate in America isn't merely terrible; it's an abomination with
> 11,000 innocent victims lying dead on the streets of America...every year,
> year after year, decade after decade.
>
> And, if you can't see that, something is very, very wrong...
You can't seem to see that closing the barn door after the horse has escaped
will accomplish nothing. What you think we can ban guns and then collect
*all* of them? You know that saying, "if you ban guns, only the criminals
will have them," is absolutely true.
Steven Martin
> I know two people who were laid off. They haven't done *anything* to
> find a new job. They are riding on unemployment. Once it's over, they
> will look for a new job. It cuts both ways.
>
> Kurt
Well Kurt your friends must have more cash than I have. I was on
unemployment for 3 months last year and I had to draw off a credit
card to pay my bills. I was entitled to the maximum benefit allowed
in the State of Virginia.
Hope it doesn't happen to you Kurt it ain't very nice.
Steve
JC Martin
> JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > If they have to, Mossad or the CIA will lob something into Israel.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CIA? *LOL* Get real Jon.
>
> unrealistic and/or laughable?
Better yet, why don't you explain how such a inane comment is *realistic*.
Seems the burden of explanation rests with yourself. Geez, and what makes
you even believe we could pull it off? It's beyond high risk and laughable
that you could even perceive of such an action as a reality. I suppose you
too believe that it was the Jews took down the WTC, right?
-JC
JC Martin
news:8ee15971.02112...@posting.google.com...
> This is kind of depressing. I come here to share in the joy of the
> Grateful Dead and there is all this angry politic nonsense. Lets go
> back to the good old day of not caring.
Not caring, eh? Maybe people are angry around here *because* too many
people in this country stopped caring.
-JC
Joe
Sure people die in traffic accidents. That's sad, and personally, I'm glad
that there's a push to bust drunk-drivers...but still...11,000 people are
needlessly slaughtered each year in the streets of America... victims of
gun violence.
And, pointing out that people die from other causes...well...it's
comparing apples and oranges. It's two different issues.
Joe
JYOB
>11,000 people are
>needlessly slaughtered each year in the streets of America... victims of
>gun violence.
Scary: If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
EVEN MORE SCARIER: If guns are outlawed only THE GOVERNMENT will have guns!!!
Joe
perhaps the White House itself played a role in the manufactured energy
crisis that was foisted onto California last year, and from which, close
to $9 Billion dollars was illegally extracted from Californians' wallets:
Energy providers have juice
DAVID LAZARUS [clear.gif] Friday, November 22, 2002 [chronicle.gif]
_________________________________________________________________
So now we know, thanks to documents just released by federal
regulators, that energy providers Williams and AES conspired to drive
electricity prices higher during the worst of the California power
crisis.
What most people don't know, though, is that board members of both
companies have links to the White House, as do directors of other
energy heavyweights that have received subpoenas for their alleged
role in fleecing California ratepayers.
There's no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of these board
members. But their ties to the first and second Bush administrations
once again raise troubling questions about what federal authorities
knew about the energy crisis and when they knew it -- and why they
didn't act sooner.
Take the case of Thomas Cruikshank, who has served on the Williams
board for the past 12 years. He also happens to be the retired chief
executive officer of Halliburton and personally selected Vice
President Dick Cheney to succeed him at the helm of the Dallas oil
services giant.
Cheney subsequently engineered Halliburton's acquisition of Dresser
Industries, which saddled the company with huge asbestos liabilities,
and approved accounting practices that are now under investigation by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Kelly Swan, a Williams spokesman, indicated that Cruikshank likely
knew of Williams' shenanigans with AES no later than the summer of
2001, when the company agreed to play ball with federal investigators.
Williams' documents and phone records show that the company colluded
with AES to keep power plants offline as California grid operators
were scrambling in 2000 to avoid blackouts. A limited supply of juice
caused electricity prices to soar.
"The board is routinely updated on the company's business," Swan told
me, "but we don't comment on their discussions."
Shortly before Williams agreed to cooperate with investigators, Cheney
was meeting with a variety of energy-industry bigwigs, including
former Enron Chairman Ken Lay, to determine the White House's official
response to California's difficulties.
(The energy pros got their way: Cheney and President Bush all but told
California to deal with things itself, setting the stage for the
bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and a huge state budget
deficit.)
Did Cheney contact his corporate mentor to discuss the situation in
California? Did Cruikshank ever mention that Williams was profiting
handsomely from the state's troubles (it made an extra $10 million in
just two weeks)?
Who knows? The White House is keeping details of Cheney's
energy-policy talks to itself, including who the vice president and
his people spoke with and what was said during the meetings.
"The vice president and the president should be able to receive
unvarnished advice so they can put forth the best policies," said
Jennifer Millerwise, a spokeswoman for Cheney. And that's all she'd
say on the matter.
Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative
arm, and other parties sued to gain access to Cheney's records. A
federal judge has given the White House until the end of the month to
finally come clean on at least some of the documents.
Maybe then we'll know whether Cheney discussed the California energy
crisis with David Lesar, who took the reins as CEO of Halliburton once
Cheney dove back into public service two years ago.
Cedric Burgher, Halliburton's vice president of investor relations,
told me earlier this year that Cheney and Lesar have remained in touch
since the corporate baton was passed. "He'll call us back," Burgher
said of Cheney. "He has a lot of friends here."
There's more at stake, though, than just a couple of old pals chewing
the fat. Lesar is also a director of energy provider Mirant, which has
been subpoenaed by the U.S. attorney's office to explain its actions
as California suffered rolling blackouts.
Three successive Halliburton CEOs, each with a unique tie to the
energy crisis. A strange coincidence, to say the least.
And what of AES, the company Williams was conniving with to send
electricity prices skyrocketing? Richard Darman, who worked with
Cheney in the first Bush administration (he headed the Office of
Management and Budget) has sat on the AES board since August.
Darman is also a managing director of the Carlyle Group, the
Washington investment firm led by some of the world's most influential
men, including former Secretary of State James Baker and former
Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci.
The first President Bush is affiliated with Carlyle as well. Prior to
Sept. 11, so was the family of Osama bin Laden.
Has Darman discussed AES' questionable business practices with his
Carlyle cronies? Could any of those talks have made it back to the
White House, one way or another?
Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman insisted that Darman "doesn't discuss
any issues with anyone in the government. Period." An AES spokeswoman
declined to comment.
At this point, it's hard to know what to believe. It has taken more
than two years for Californians to learn of the Williams-AES
collusion. We found out only last month that Enron's top West Coast
energy trader was rigging power prices as early as May 1999.
The energy crisis was clearly more complex, and criminal, than we ever
imagined. Exactly how complex, and how criminal, has yet to be seen.
Joe
have unleashed upon the American public:
CALIFORNIA AIR COULD GET DIRTIER -- EPA RELAXES RULES
DEMOCRATS AGHAST -- SENATOR SAYS WHITMAN SHOULD RESIGN
God damn, do I declare! It's like the X-Files come to life...evil aliens
take over and attempt to extinguish all life on the planet, for their own
nefarious ends. Every day, those "morons" in the White House have yet
another deadly deceptive surprise in store for you!
Got clean air? Not anymore, you don't.
Joe
JYOB
> CALIFORNIA AIR COULD GET DIRTIER -- EPA RELAXES RULES
> DEMOCRATS AGHAST -- SENATOR SAYS WHITMAN SHOULD RESIGN
The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!
TOG
Joe
power companies are now free to pollute the air *you* breathe. And, just
think...by the time Bush gets out of office, he'll be responsible for more
American deaths than 200 Osamas.
Who is the real evil terrorist?
EPA = Environmental Pollution Agency!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air
rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having
to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize
their plants.
The long-awaited regulation issued by the Environmental Protection
agency was immediately attacked by environmentalists, state air
quality regulators and attorneys general in several Northeast states
who promised a lawsuit to try to reverse the action.
But EPA Administrator Christie Whitman rejected critics' claims that
the changes would produce dirtier air, saying in a statement they
would encourage emission reductions by providing utilities and
refinery operators new flexibility.
She said the old program has "deterred companies from implementing
projects that would increase energy efficiency and decrease air
pollution."
A group of Northeastern states, led by New York and Connecticut, said
they plan to file suit shortly challenging the changes. The state
officials contend that the easing of the clean air requirements "will
undermine efforts" to meet air quality standards.
The rule changes, which have been a top priority of the White House,
are aimed at making it easier for utilities and refinery operators to
change operations and expand production without installing new
emission controls.
Industry has argued that the old EPA regulations known as "New Source
Review" under the Clean Air Act have hindered operation and prevented
efficiency improvements.
The new EPA regulation will allow industry to:
o Set higher limits for the amount of pollution that can be released
by calculating emissions on a plant-wide basis rather than for
individual pieces of equipment.
o Rely on the highest historical pollution levels during the past
decade when figuring whether a facility's overall pollution increase
requires new controls.
o Exempt increased output of secondary contaminants that result from
new pollution controls for other emissions.
In addition, the agency is proposing a new way of defining what
constitutes "routine maintenance, repair and replacement" -- key
language that helps determine when the regulations should kick in and
is particularly important for aging coal-fired power plants.
The EPA says the rule changes would encourage emission reductions by
providing utilities and refinery operators new flexibility.
The EPA says the rule changes would encourage emission reductions by
providing utilities and refinery operators new flexibility.
The EPA plans to grant power plants, factories and refineries an
annual "allowance" for maintenance. Only when expenditures rise above
that allowance would an owner or operator have to install new
pollution control equipment. Replacement of existing equipment would
be considered maintenance.
The administration said the new maintenance treatment "will offer
facilities greater flexibility to improve and modernize their
operations in ways that will reduce energy use and air pollution."
However, Vickie Patton, an attorney with Environmental Defense, said
the changes amount to "a sweeping and unprecedented erosion of state
and local power to protect the public health from air pollution" by
thousands of power plants, oil refineries and industrial facilities.
"They're going to do everything they can not only to roll these rules
back at the federal level but to force states to dismantle clean air
programs that have been in place for years," she said.
Industry sought changes
The changes were sought by the utility, coal and oil industries, and
were the subject of months of review at the White House. The electric
utility and coal industries were both major donors to Republicans for
the 2002 and 2000 elections.
Electric companies and their employees contributed at least $11
million to the GOP in the 2001-02 election cycle, more than twice as
much as they gave Democrats, according to figures compiled by the
Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks
campaign finance.
Coal companies and their employees made at least $1.9 million in
political contributions in that period, with more than $8 of every $10
going to Republicans, the center found.
Bush's 2000 presidential campaign was also a major beneficiary of the
industries' largess. Several energy executives raised at least
$100,000 each for Bush's campaign, and the energy industry, including
electric and mining companies, gave more than $2.8 million.
Many of the fund-raisers and donors were members of Bush's transition
team, weighing in on energy and environmental policy as the president
set up his administration.
Joe
latest anti-American terrorist tactics...
"EPA's announcement is a victory for the nation's biggest polluters
and a heartbreaking development for the American people," said U.S.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
"This is the opening salvo of the Republicans in their war on our
nation's air and our water," said U.S. Rep Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts.
"Children's health is the collateral damage in this war."
"EPA cannot rewrite the law," said Peter Lehner, head of the
environmental protection bureau for the New York attorney general's
office. "EPA cannot allow the facilities to increase emissions when
Congress has said facilities must decrease emissions."
Bill
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote
> "EPA cannot rewrite the law," said Peter Lehner, head of the
> environmental protection bureau for the New York attorney general's
> office. "EPA cannot allow the facilities to increase emissions when
> Congress has said facilities must decrease emissions."
It's amazing how this administration takes action opposite of what the laws
on the books are - and gets away with it. There's the ABM Treaty that they
are saying they will no longer abide by - a treaty the Congress approved.
Nowhere does the US Constitution give a president the right to break or
cancel a treaty. Some members of Congress have sued over this but
considering how Republican-friendly some of the federal courts in this
country are, following the law and the constitution will be ignored by these
courts so they can show their loyalty to fellow Republicans.
There's the 1996 Telecommunications Act (a federal law that specifically
stated no media company could own more than 30% of the channels in an area.
The Bush FCC is ignoring that restriction (and ignoring a law passed by the
Congress and signed by the president) and allowing media companies to own a
greater percentage of channels. According to the Bush administration and
its FCC appointees, media concentration is good - the fewer media owners
there are, the better.
And now this administration is ignoring the Clean Air Act, a federal law on
the books, by not requiring the plants to upgrade their equipment when
making changes or expanding the plant.
Of course, such undemocratic and illegal actions will be rewarded at the
ballot box by a, on the whole, clueless and ignorant US electorate who know
little to nothing about their government and what it's up to, probably
because they rely on the IQ-lowering national television networks (Fox, CNN,
MS-NBC, ABC, CBS) and Rush Limbaugh clones for their "news."
Roger
> cancel a treaty.
The Constitution gives Congress the sole responsibility to declare
war, a responsibility Congress (unofficially) abdicated to the
Executive branch long ago. This is just another example of how
spineless those tools are. They'll give away anything but their
paychecks.
Peace
Roger
Timothy Lynch
} >From: Joe jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid
Try reading for comprhension. The sky isn't falling, it's just
getting dirtier and dirtier as hard-won environmental protections
get thrown-out or ignored.
the sound of thick air, <- note ODC ;-)
Tim
tly...@socrates.berkeley.edu
Garry Bryan
: jy...@aol.comTOG (JYOB) wrote:
: } >From: Joe jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid
: } > CALIFORNIA AIR COULD GET DIRTIER -- EPA RELAXES RULES
: } > DEMOCRATS AGHAST -- SENATOR SAYS WHITMAN SHOULD RESIGN
: } The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!
: Try reading for comprhension. The sky isn't falling, it's just
: getting dirtier and dirtier as hard-won environmental protections
: get thrown-out or ignored.
And all particles too large to be inhaled should be mailed directly to the
White House. . .
Garry
Kyleolso
Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and leave you to you own doings.
Where as the liberal wants to tax and monitor your every move. Never
understood why so many free thinkers wants the liberal government telling them
how to think and act. Here is to less government....
Brian Perry
>
> I never understood the Hippies fasination with the left. The conservative
> Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and leave you to you own doings.
Well, except for anything relating to sex of course. Or morals. And
you'd better be Christian and preferably Baptist. White is nice too.
Money though, there you can do your own thing.
--
Brian Perry
Coordinator of Undergraduate Advising
School of Management, Binghamton University
Green Bowler
Timothy Lynch
} I never understood the Hippies fasination with the left. The
} conservative Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and
} leave you to you own doings.
} Where as the liberal wants to tax and monitor your every move.
} Never understood why so many free thinkers wants the liberal
} government telling them how to think and act. Here is to less
} government...
Congratulations: You fell for The Big Lie. Deficit spending under
Reagan and both Bushes was/is huge. (Converesely "libereals like
Carter and Clinton tried to pay off deficits and aimed at
balanced budgets.) The police state abuses of power are also huge
under the right (can say John Ashcroft and Ed Meese?). As for the
tax thing, the right loves to cut taxes... IFF you're part of the
richest 1% of Americans. As for "less government" perhaps you
haven't noticed the HUGE growth in gov't agencies under Shrubya,
like the freedom-loving "Homeland Security" bit.
Keep on biting on the rhetoric of the right; that way you'll miss
the fact the reality is often exactly the opposite of what they
say.
war is peace,
Tim
tly...@socrates.berkeley.edu
Jperdue4
>Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and leave you to you own
>doings.
except what sorts of sex you like, what drugs you like, what tv shows you want
to watch, what music you want to listen to....etc....etc.... "you free to do as
we tell you"....perfect...
Garry Bryan
: kyle...@aol.comedy (Kyleolso) wrote:
: say. ^^^^^ you mis-spelled "always". . .
Garry <Freedom is slavery>
: war is peace,
: Tim
: tly...@socrates.berkeley.edu
volkfolk
"Brian Perry" <bpe...@binghamton.edu> wrote in message
news:3DE281D9...@binghamton.edu...
> Kyleolso wrote:
> >
> > I never understood the Hippies fasination with the left. The
conservative
> > Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and leave you to you own
doings.
>
> Well, except for anything relating to sex of course. Or morals. And
> you'd better be Christian and preferably Baptist. White is nice too.
> Money though, there you can do your own thing.
Don't confuse the Religious right with TRUE conservatism. People like Jerry
Fawell, Trent Lott, Ralph Reid et.al are fascists. Real conservatives are
libertarians (as an adjective, not a noun). I vote for those people who will
tax me less and allow me to live my life with as little government
interference as possible. More often than not those people are Republicans.
That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot Republicans who aren't interested
in legislating morality and peering into your bedroom (and I DON'T vote for
those people), it just means that I believe that I can decide how to spend
my money better than Hillary Clinton, Tom Dascle, Nancy Polsi (sp?) etc.
The government wastes our money on to many programs top heavy on bureaucracy
and short on results.
Flame away
Scot
volkfolk
"Green Bowler" <mmandr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BA07ED57.116A0%mmandr...@comcast.net...
> Yeah sure they do... So making abortion illegal is leaving you alone
right?
Shouldn't there be some sort of correlary to Godwins Law pertaining to
abortion?
Scot
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Jperdue4" <jper...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021125160157...@mb-cn.aol.com...
And the Dems don't tell you this?
Didn't Clinton come up with the "don't ask/don't tell" stategy to address
gays in the military? Wow! Progressive!
Almost all Dems are pro war-on-drugs.
Tipper Gore led the fight against lyrics in the 80's.
Jon, not saying the Reps are any better on these issues.
-mike-
So-Called "Right" wants:
Everybody look out for themselves
Free to do what you want IF you don't want to do anything
Unusual
Free to worship your God IF that God meets with the approval
of your neighbors
Free to do your own thing inside your house IF it doesn't
disturb a small group of white men with 19th century
attitudes about gender roles and acceptable sexual
expression
Free to cheat anybody you like as long as it doesn't involve
actually hitting them or sticking a gun in their face
(Lying is OK)
Free to break any rules you like as long as you help the
right people get elected
So-Called "Left" wants:
Help other people
Provide opportunities for personal development
Butt in EVERYWHERE to make sure you do it right
Lower expectations to the lowest common denominator
Use the power of the government to make sure the powerful do
not flout the rules
(I'm not very adept at deciding what emissions are safe for
me to breathe, I'm glad to pay taxes so someone who is good
at it can check the factories and force compliance)
There may be more, but I throw my lot in with the "Left",
even with all its faults.
-m-
-mike-
> Don't confuse the Religious right with TRUE conservatism. People like Jerry
> Fawell, Trent Lott, Ralph Reid et.al are fascists.
Then why don't the "true" conservatives kick these jerks in
the ass and make them start their own party? I would
consider "joining" a true "Compassionate Conservative"
movement. But as long as
Ashcroft/Lott/Helms/Bush/Cheney/Falwell... are driving the
bus, I'd rather walk.
-m-
volkfolk
"-mike-" <cla...@powerweb.net> wrote in message
news:3DE30822...@powerweb.net...
For the same reason that moderate middle of the road democrats can't unseat
the left wing nut jobs from the Democratic party........Apathy.
Face it, The two major political parties are controled by extremists. there
are very few reasonable voices on either side of the aisle in Washington,
and America has been sufficently dumbed down so that very few people are
cognizant of the fact that the actually could make a difference if they
actually voted.
No matter what side of the fence you are on you can't argue the fact that
these days no politician is elected by a majority of the population, because
the majority of the people don't vote.
The shame of it is that we end up with leaders who are not up to the job of
leadership.
then again we get the government that we deserve
Scot
Scot
Frndthdevl
> I would
>consider "joining" a true "Compassionate Conservative"
>movement.
Well the closest thing would be the Libertarian Party IMHO. Compassionate does
not necessarly mean welfare. Plus there would always be compromise between what
Libs espouse and what Demcraps and repubcraps now mandate.
Welfare will never go completely away,nor taxes,nor drug laws ,nor foreign
aide, but at least things might become saner. YMMV
-mike-
You might be right. On the "World's Smallest Political
Test" I come out pretty Libertarian. (Can you smell the but
coming?)
BUT... the fatal flaw is in protection of the environment
and reliance on the open market. There is too much evil in
the world to let things Take Their Course. We need a strong
central government and unfortunately Libertarians want to
eviscerate it and hide from the world.
As a second point, the world is rocketing towards being one
community and we need to be a part of it. "America First,
Screw the Rest of You Guys" doesn't do it for me.
I bet there are many planks I agree with, but those are the
major drawbacks. Maybe I should just start the Clawsonian
movement and be done with it. As I said in my campaign, I
wanted to vote for someone who thinks like I do; and no one
thinks more like me than me. And I agree with my views much
more often than I disagree with them.
-m-
Frndthdevl
>From: -mike-
>Frndthdevl wrote:
>>
>> Well the closest thing would be the Libertarian Party IMHO.
> I come out pretty Libertarian. (Can you smell the but
>coming?)
>
>BUT... the fatal flaw is in protection of the environment
>and reliance on the open market. There is too much evil in
>the world to let things Take Their Course. We need a strong
>central government and unfortunately Libertarians want to
>eviscerate it and hide from the world.
Compromise would still be a strong trait, even among libertarians. you just
start from a postion that leads us away from the status quo as it exists today,
as dictated by democraps and republirats. Legalized meth and heroin would never
happen. But perhaps decriminalized pot and a medical approach to drug abuse
instead of a penal approach.
>As a second point, the world is rocketing towards being one
>community and we need to be a part of it.
Says you. We already are a part of it by allowing so many immigrants here for
so many years. That will never change. What might change is the idea that are
doors have to remain open forever, while so many already here suffer as they
should not.
Our votes today for a third party are votes for our grandchildren and great
grandchildren. demorats and republicraps will not give up their power easily.
But that does not mean we can not at least send messages till then by voting
third party. becaesu if you think your vote matters be it republicrap or
democrap, well. nevermind.
Ray Lee
> I never understood the Hippies fasination with the left. The conservative
> Right wants to leave you alone, tax you less, and leave you to you own doings.
Perhaps because amongst many other reasons it's the Right that wants
to leave those who seek to degrade the environment for profit alone to
their own doings (since we're throwing around simplistic
overgeneralizations - hey this is fun!).
> Where as the liberal wants to tax and monitor your every move.
The Right repeats this mantra so often that I guess it shouldn't be
surprising that some folks actually believe it.
It wasn't the liberals that proposed the Terrorism Information and
Prevention System (TIPS), which sought to turn your neighbors and
postal carriers into spies on you: it was Bush Administration Attorney
General John Ashcroft.
And it is the Bush Administration, not "the liberal," who has laid the
groundwork for the "Total Information Awareness" system, which if
enacted according to plan will *literally* monitor your every move.
As Democratic Senator Bill Nelson explained to the Senate last week:
"The Department of Defense is developing a computer system to grant
intelligence and law enforcement authorities the power to secretly
access ordinary citizens' private information, including e-mail,
financial statements and medical records -- to access that private
information without the protections of a court order... The so-called
Total Information Awareness program -- located … deep inside the
Department of Defense -- would make possible unwarranted governmental
intrusions such as we have never seen before."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/11/26/nelson_speech/index.html
And as conservative New York Times columnist William Safire explains:
"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine
subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site
you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you
receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every
event you attend... passport application, driver's license and bridge
toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy
neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest
hidden camera surveillance... all these transactions and
communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as
"a virtual, centralized grand database... a 'Total Information
Awareness' about every U.S. citizen."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html
> Here is to less government....
What is your opinion about the Bush Administration's "Total
Information Awareness" program, Kyleolso?
Ray
Brian Perry
I appreciate your point and tend to share much of it, but libertarians
are an insignificant fringe of the conservative spectrum. I'll spend
my time worrying about the actual folks who hold the center of the
conservative political label, who are indeed the Religious Right.
triton
> Timothy Lynch <tly...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> : war is peace,
> : Tim
> Garry <Freedom is slavery>
Ignorance is Strength