Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Election 2004
#31
Posted 14 October 2004 - 09:24 PM
(FWIW: I have an MD so I have some knowledge of the substances I speak of)
#32
Posted 14 October 2004 - 09:28 PM
As far as Libertarian. Sounds great if you're living on a small farm in Idaho.
Sounds like a sound-bite straight out of a negative campaign ad. You obviously haven't thought it through Don...or don't care to. Libertarians believe people should only be forced to obey contracts they have voluntarily joined. The free-market just happens to flow from this precept. There is nothing more ethical, because everything else involves force against people's will. Your "society demanding things" is really "the majority demanding things...and screw everyone else".
Immortalism is inherently a Libertarian movement. We have all joined here freely. No force involved. We can all leave freely. We all would like to decide, for ourselves, the length of our lives. Don't tell me you are going to wait around for the majority to "demand" the government to provide immortality.
#33
Posted 14 October 2004 - 09:39 PM
How about a google search link is that OK?
http://www.google.co...zer&btnG=Search
See the first search return for the google search term communist+sympathizer
Thanks for the complement on the avatar. I made that in Bryce 5 about a year ago.
A much larger version is on my web site at http://www.enhancement-technology.com
sponsored ad
#34
Posted 14 October 2004 - 09:57 PM
Well, I haven't visited the supplements forum, and I don't have an MD, so I speak mostly from ignorance, but from an outside perspective, the reasons for banning ephedra seemed fairly legitimate. Prohormones don't seem to have legitimate reasons for being banned, at least not biological ones, and the push to ban them stems mainly from this notion that they're "not fair" (i.e. in competitive sports). Would you disagree?Oh and along different lines...no matter who you provide welfare for, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, the gov't has no business telling me what I can't put into my body. The amino acid tryptophan is banned for stupid reasons (one contaminated batch, explained ages ago), ephedra is banned, prohormones are on the verge of being banned (not that I would take either), europe is limiting what vitamins and potencies people can take (already here for folic acid), one batch of a nootropic (priacetam) was not allowed into the country....This mentality of they know best for us (defined by the dems, but alas republicans not much better) is a huge problem.
(FWIW: I have an MD so I have some knowledge of the substances I speak of)
Personally, I don't think we should be trying to ban products for "social" reasons, such as was the case early on with birth control pills (because they promote "promiscuity" and premarital sex), or as in the example of prohormones, which are banned because they give an "unfair" competitive advantage. The same could be said of creatine, though I've heard rumors that creatine may follow if prohormones are successfully banned. Where do we draw the line? Nitric oxide production (L-Arginine-alpha-Ketoglutarate)? Protein shakes? Chicken, tuna, pasta, and gatorade?
That said, there are questions about their long-term safety, especially if not properly used (e.g. cycled), and I think that they should be allowed to be sold with the stipulation that the manufacturers are left open to lawsuits if later evidence more firmly establishes the alleged health risks.
However, the argument against that which I have heard is that most of the prohormone supplement manufacturers are small startups that don't have a broader market to risk losing by a catastrophic lawsuit. In other words, if Merck were to try to sell pro-hormones, they could risk losing up to 10 or 50 times what they might make on them, which would cut into their other revenue lines. Hence, they won't get into the market. But if company XYZ only sells questionably safe products, they can just sit back, take in their profits, and then file bankruptcy when the first legitimate lawsuit is brought against them. This means no accountability, and therefore no effort to ensure safety. Which is why the FDA gets involved in the first place.
Yes, regulation sucks, but a free market does not always self-regulate in the interests of the "people", contrary to what Libertarians might hope.
Of course, the real solution isn't to ban pro-hormones: the solution is to put further accountability on their manufacture. If financial disincentives are not enough (e.g. the risk of a lawsuit with punitive damages exceeding revenues, let alone profits), then criminal charges (with accompanying jail time) need to be the carrot dangled on that big stick the FDA likes to brandish.
Of course, from a libertarian standpoint, I suppose that the punitive damages of a lawsuit, if paid for (perhaps through an FDA-required insurance policy held by the manufacturer?) directly to those who were affected, would "compensate" for whatever pain and suffering they endured. But I'm not very knowledgeable about how Libertarians view this, so I'm taking a guess. Is this how we would avoid the criminal penalties? Requiring "negligent manufacturer's insurance" is still regulation, but it's a far cry less than banning questionable substances. And obviously, no one will insure a manufacturer who makes undeniably unsafe products; no insurance, no permission to manufacture. De facto ban, instead of a de jure ban.
Just a guess. Probably a little off topic, but someone brought up Badnarik, so I figure there was a smooth transition into this...
#35
Posted 14 October 2004 - 10:43 PM
Oh and along different lines...no matter who you provide welfare for, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, the gov't has no business telling me what I can't put into my body. The amino acid tryptophan is banned for stupid reasons (one contaminated batch, explained ages ago), ephedra is banned, prohormones are on the verge of being banned (not that I would take either), europe is limiting what vitamins and potencies people can take (already here for folic acid), one batch of a nootropic (priacetam) was not allowed into the country....This mentality of they know best for us (defined by the dems, but alas republicans not much better) is a huge problem.
(FWIW: I have an MD so I have some knowledge of the substances I speak of)
Cherish our supplement rights, the way things are going we may lose our ability to ingest nootropics and even the most basic of other supplements.
#36
Posted 14 October 2004 - 10:52 PM
A libertarian would say anyone should be allowed to injest any substance they wish. It is up to the consumer to evaluate the dangers vs. benefits. If they are unsure about (or ignorant about) the safety, they should defer to an expert source for evaluation. In most cases, in the modern world the source of saftey information is the government.
The (libertarian) duty of the "expert source" is to provide information, not to force the consumer to take/not take the substance. If someone wants to kill themselves by injesting a lethal substance...it is their choice.
A producer can still be criminally liable if they knowingly lie about the risks and benefits. Meaning, if you told someone you were selling them candy, but you KNEW it was cyanide, then it is homicide.
In the case of ephedra, the risk of death is extremely, extremely, extremely low. The benefits are known (more energy, weightloss). Most libertarians I know would allow it to be sold.
#37
Posted 14 October 2004 - 11:26 PM
Sounds like a sound-bite straight out of a negative campaign ad. You obviously haven't thought it through Don.
Oh, I most certainly have thought it through. I was just being flippant and hoping to provoke some dialog. And as I made clear, it was said in jest [tung]
Libertarians believe people should only be forced to obey contracts they have voluntarily joined.
This sounds too good to be true, and it is. Libertarians seem to be intent on drawing a line in the sand between the "individual" and "society". This, I would contend, is an arbitrary distinction and one which utilizes faulty philosophical constructs. Human beings are communal creatures which engage in symbiotic relationships with one another for mutual benefit. Often, these relationships are not by choice, but by necessity. There needs to be a transportation infrastructure, a food supply, and adequate sanitation systems in every society. It would seem (almost) self evident that services/programs such as these are basic necessities of any society and ones which should be ratified into law by majority mandate (A MAJORITY BEING THE ONLY WAY TO REACH A CONCENSUS AND COMMIT TO COLLECTIVE ACTION IN A REPRESENTATIVE SOCIETY). So already there are holes in the volitional nature of social contracts as proposed by the Libertarian Ideal.
But the necessity of collective action (and the resultant inter-dependency) in providing basic social services is only one of the many elements blurring the line between the individual and the state. When one considers and utilizes the concept of the meme - when one adopts the conceptual framework of memetics - one is struck by the remarkable interconnected of the individual mind to the collective mind of society. Simply put, our memetic framework is in large part a product of the memesphere (society at large). Our language, our knowledge, our very thoughts are supplied to us by society. Without horizontal (in the present) and vertical (cumulative, historic) memetic transmission humanity would never have progressed past the primitive (essentially isolated) knowledge base that can be acquired by the average chimp. Why am I rambling like this? Because I am of the opinion that no man is an island, and entertaining such notions are folly. The glorified Randian Ideal of the “Individual” is a fiction and, along with it, most of the suppositions of Libertarianism as well. Put more crudely, once the foundational premise of [absolute] individual autonomy and identity is falsified the Libertarian Ideal no longer passes the “smell test”.
The free-market just happens to flow from this precept. There is nothing more ethical, because everything else involves force.
You are ignoring the fact that the system of capitalism itself applies force on individuals, albeit in a much more impersonal and subtle manner. I wish I had more time to respond to this (and other) aspect of your post, but I have run out of time for today. Perhaps tomorrow.
#38
Posted 15 October 2004 - 01:27 AM
"the reasons for banning ephedra seemed fairly legitimate"
If I ingest something, then I am responsible for knowing what I am ingesting and taking the risks. I would never take or recommend the stuff, but something like 99% (or more) people can use it safely. The key is not to think more is better and take huge doses (or not use it if you have certain medical issues).
If I pick up a hot cup of coffee then I am responsible for the consequences. The fact that I can pick up that hot cup of coffee, burn myself, sue McDonalds and enrich myself and the lawyers is a symptom of this mentality and a sign of the times.
The whopping majority of all athletes take real drugs e.g. steroids. I would never use them, or recommend them. Given the rewards to athletes, what do you expect? Avoiding getting caught is fairly simple, and they are (used intelligently and in reasonable doses) not particularly harmful for the most part. The prohormone thing is equally silly.
"allowed to be sold with the stipulation that the manufacturers are left open to lawsuits if later evidence more firmly establishes the alleged health risks."
Why?? Please show me the part of the constitution where suing is an inalienable right? (BTW the way, the trial lawyers make Haliburton look like mother theresa, but that is another discussion). You put it in your body, barring deception or hiding of the risks on the part of the company selling it, it is your responsibility.
>>Yes, regulation sucks, but a free market does not always self-regulate in the >>interests of the "people", contrary to what Libertarians might hope.
>>Of course, the real solution isn't to ban pro-hormones: the solution is to put >>further accountability on their manufacture.
The real solution is to take responsibility for ones one behavior. If you are responsible for your behavior there is no need for the society to.
Edited by scottl, 15 October 2004 - 10:01 AM.
#39
Posted 15 October 2004 - 05:18 PM
It is, of course, desired that the state exhibit a high degree of respect for individual rights. I would argue that this can be accomplished by embracing humanistic ideals. I simply do not view Libertarianism as a necessity in attaining sufficient autonomy for the individual. Further, a preliminary inspection of Libertarianism would seem to indicate that once its Ideal has been ruptured the debate then boils down to a matter of degrees. A compromised Libertarianism seems convergent with a humanistic perspective, or so I am led to believe.
#40
Posted 15 October 2004 - 07:30 PM
sufficient autonomy
Don, this is where we disagree. "sufficient autonomy" requires a definition. Libertarians believe each person should decide for themselves how much autonomy they want, or conversely how connected they want to be to societal and governmental functions. In all other systems an individuals "sufficient autonomy" is decided by others.
You ask any king, dictator, or non-limited form of government throughout history if their subjects had "sufficient autonomy" and they would all answer yes...but would the subjects say the same thing?
If you believe in individual rights against the mob (or connected majority, or societal organism, or whatever you want to call it), then you are basically Libertarian. It is just a matter degree.
#41
Posted 15 October 2004 - 07:39 PM
Okay, I didn't do any formatting of this: I have tried to maintain the original formatting, including bold, italics, and font size changes.Why oppose Prop. 71?
Posted by keepitreal
August 12, 2004 at 8:37 PM
Question: Why did the state Republican Party oppose Prop. 71? It is meant to provide money for stem cell research. Such research could help end Alzheimer's, the very thing that contributed to Reagan's death. I just don't get how you could turn your back on Reagan. Has the state GOP been taken over by the ultraconservatives? Please explain.
answer: First of all, this issue is VERY personal to me. I lost my grandfather to Alzheimer's and just recently lost my father to the same, cruel disease. If there is one issue where the Party's position has been totally misrepresented by the other side, it is our view on stem-cell research. Let me try to set the record straight both from a national and state perspective. First, when Clinton was president, a law was passed that prevented any federal funding of embryonic research. It was President Bush who reversed this policy and allocated $100 million to embryonic stem-cell research. The President also permitted non governmental entities to actively pursue such research outside the areas to be funded by the federal government. Statements that the President opposes stem research or that the federal government has banned stem-cell research are nothing but lies perpetuated for poltical advantage. Proposition 71 proposes to issue $3 billion in bonds (an amount almost equal to 3% of the state's total budget) to support such research. We opposed the initiative on economic grounds. In an era when the state government is straining to keep our budget balanced, we felt the passage of a measure that would ultimately cost the taxpayers close to $6 billion in principle and interest, would be a mistake and place education and essential health care services at risk. There is nothing in state law that prohibits universities and companies from pursuing such research, and we hope that they do.
That said, let's move on to why this guy is a lying b... I was going to call him a lying male born out of wedlock, but then I remembered that this is the Politics forum, not the free speech forum. I will try to restrain myself. Needless to say, this guy is shamelessly lying to what he hopes is an otherwise ignorant public. It might be okay if he was just a political pundit, but he's the "chairman of the California Republican Party" for crying out loud!
Okay, let's start with the obvious lies, then move on to the more obtuse ones.
1) Proposition 71 proposes to issue $3 billion in bonds (an amount almost equal to 3% of the state's total budget) to support such research.
Okay, first of all, it's $3 billion dollars to be spread out over ten years. It's actually $293 million a year, as memory serves, and that represents less than 0.3% of the budget.
Verdict? EXPOSED!
2) We opposed the initiative on economic grounds. In an era when the state government is straining to keep our budget balanced, we felt the passage of a measure that would ultimately cost the taxpayers close to $6 billion in principle and interest, would be a mistake and place education and essential health care services at risk.
This one's interesting. While it's a lie on the surface, there's something deeper going on here as well. Notice that he's not trying to oppose stem cell research on ideological/religious grounds. They've realized that they've lost that battle a long time ago!
Okay, commentary aside, what's the lie? It's in the first sentence: "economic grounds". The state alone spends billions of dollars through MediCal, much of it on diseases potentially curable and/or treatable via the fruits of embryonic stem cell research. If we could save even $300 million a year for a couple decades by performing this research, it has more than paid for itself. I say "more" than paid for itself, because it has paid for itself in economic terms, *plus* it has saved lives and prevented or alleviated suffering. Of course, looking at the bigger picture, this research would save tens of billions of dollars annually across the nation (which of course means lower taxes and/or fewer cuts in other important federal programs like No Child Left Behind, a mantra with the Republicans these days). Given the reluctance of the federal government to take responsible action on this, it would be selfish and inhumane of us Californians to thumb our nose at such research because of the costs to Californians, when so much more is at stake.
But there's more to the lie. It's in the introductory phrase of the second sentence: "In an era when the state government is straining to keep our budget balanced". Wait a minute! The first repayment of the bonds is not scheduled for five years! Barring further economic or political disasters of the scale of the dotcom bust or the attacks of 9/11, it's projected that the economy should be recovered and humming along in five years. Sure, we'll always have problems balancing the budget, but revenue should be up a good 20% at least by then (considering it dropped nearly 25% from its high), so it's not like the 0.3% of the budget that this represents is coming out of thin air.
Of course, if the economy hasn't recovered by then, then we are definitely going to need the cost savings afforded by breakthroughs discovered with this research in order to prevent the very budget crisis he's foretelling! Which, by the way, is the end of the quote: "$6 billion in principle and interest, would be a mistake and place education and essential health care services at risk". No, not planning properly for the future would be a mistake!
Verdict? EXPOSED!
3) If there is one issue where the Party's position has been totally misrepresented by the other side, it is our view on stem-cell research.
Okay, this one's actually kind of funny. They refuse to lift restrictions, or to allocate "serious" funding to what is essentially a serious research topic. By serious, I'm talking about the level of funding awarded to researching things like obesity and type I diabetes, which receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Note that I'm not talking about the serious disease, cancer, which gets the lion's share of the NIH budget (almost five billion, about 17% of the budget). Bush allocated $100 million over his entire term and the first year of the next President's term, or about $20 million to $25 million a year.
More money is spent on drug abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, nursing research. Hey, the "National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine" gets more funding in one year than stem cell research has under the entire four year term of President Bush and the next fiscal year to come! What's wrong with that picture! Stem cell research has the promise to save more lives than any other single branch of research save cancer, and that last one is debateable. Yet it's not even funding to ONE PERCENT of what we spend on cancer!
But no, we're misrepresenting them because President Bush can point to President Clinton's policies and pat himself on the back. What, because President Clinton didn't allow or fund the research, that automatically makes Bush a saint? Isn't it possible that Clinton was wrong too? Which brings me to the next lie.
Verdict? EXPOSED!
4) First, when Clinton was president, a law was passed that prevented any federal funding of embryonic research. It was President Bush who reversed this policy and allocated $100 million to embryonic stem-cell research.
Okay, I'm not going to deny that Clinton suppressed the research as well. But let's be honest here, as long as we're talking about honesty. The promise of embryonic stem cells was only just beginning to be recognized during the Clinton administration. Before Clinton, they were a complete non-issue. So Clinton had the honor of setting the very first policy on embryonic stem cells. And at the time, the scientists, and not even all of them, were the only ones who recognized the promise that stem cells possessed. This was at a time when the abortion debate was once again flaring up, and all the public cared about was the destruction of embryos by mad scientists. No one in the public took seriously the promise of stem cells. What, they can cure or treat almost every major disease? Nonsense, that's more sci-fi fantasy by those wannbe-rich dotcommers.
By the time Bush set his policy, the public was waking up. He tried to pull a fast one on us. It was too late to try to continue a ban on federal funding: if he didn't compromise, he would lose the power to control the issue. So he did compromise. The research deserved hundreds of millions of dollars annually for starters, at least to get the groundwork laid for when the research would rival the spending on heart disease or cancer. Rather than spend this much, he passed a pittance of only $20 million a year, and he sufficiently restricted the lines so as to make the research virtually meaningless. This would ensure that the four years of research under his watch would fail to produce useful results, which he could point to during his hopeful second term to justify keeping the ban in place.
Unfortunately, even with the pittance of money he put into the research, and even with the restrictions on the stem cell lines (compounded by the contamination of those lines), and even with his threatened and nearly passed federal and international bans on the essential and related technology of therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research has nonetheless shown great promise in the minimal research performed in the last four years. Imagine how much could have been accomplished with adequate or even abundant funding!
Verdict? Exposed, but admittedly a little more subjectively than the previous three lies.
5) Statements that the President opposes stem research or that the federal government has banned stem-cell research are nothing but lies perpetuated for poltical advantage.
While this is a lie (becuse he's referencing lies that are not lies), it's also true, and actually quite a lovely half-truth. The statements in question have been perpetuated for political advantage. But the statements are not lies!
But more than a lie, I'd like to point out that this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Had "Duf" used facts to point out the problems with the accusations against Bush, then I wouldn't be so upset. But he uses lies to point out supposed lies and then cries foul at the opponents' lies. How shamelessly hypocritical!
So, what's the score? Three undeniably objective lies, one subjective lie, and one partial lie hidden in a hypocritical statement.
#42
Posted 15 October 2004 - 07:47 PM
(my emphasis added)If you believe in individual rights against the mob (or connected majority, or societal organism, or whatever you want to call it), then you are basically Libertarian. It is just a matter degree.
Isn't that almost what Don was getting at? To wit:
But Don is contending that Libertarians refuse to see the matter of degrees. It is as though it *must* be taken to its logical conclusion. Yet I don't see the argument that it must be taken to the logical conclusion. Surely we can say that it must err on the side of individual rights, but that's a preference, not a rule.Further, a preliminary inspection of Libertarianism would seem to indicate that once its Ideal has been ruptured the debate then boils down to a matter of degrees. A compromised Libertarianism seems convergent with a humanistic perspective, or so I am led to believe.
As an obtuse analogy, take for example, granting a 5% preference (or 15%, or 50%, it's a matter of degree) in bids from minority-run businesses instead of requiring the acceptance of said bids no matter what. There's a clear distinction in how the goal is accomplished. (I am not by the way trying to set forth my position on affirmative action; it was simply a useful analogy. Never mind whether it is right or wrong to give preference to minorities. I'm simply referring to an arbitrary goal of putting minorities before the majority, and comparing it to the arbitrary goal of putting individal freedoms, choices, and rights before those of society).
#43
Posted 15 October 2004 - 08:25 PM
http://www.piratesandemperors.com/
and you might even enjoy this little article about International Opinion polls.
Polls Show Worsening of U.S. Reputation
But oh yeah who the hell cares about what them there furiners think anywho. )
#44
Posted 15 October 2004 - 09:29 PM
(Note: Font size and pictures were MUCH larger than they appear here).
Anyone remember this??
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:B8dWMTLTBwgJ:http://www.albertarose.org/Remember/images/WTC1.jpg[/img]
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:QE46xnkIqfUJ:www.jerseycityonline.com/wtc/wtc_photos/plane1.JPG[/img]
By the way, that senator was AL GORE!
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ejd2sykMstgJ:digilander.libero.it/APKH/images/Apocalypse%2520yesterday/WORLD%2520TRADE%2520CENTER%2520ATTACK%25204.jpg[/img]
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:nph0hhGj2O0J:cemail2.ce.ntu.edu.tw/photo/building/bld9bThe%2520World%2520Trade%2520Center,%2520New%2520York.jpg[/img]
Has it really been three years?
If you agree that the American public should be made aware of this fact, pass this on.
#45
Posted 15 October 2004 - 09:48 PM
Why, why do they mock us??? [lol]
Completely random, but I found this in my surfing for funny pics and just have to share it with every one.
It is titled, "Caught".
#46
Posted 15 October 2004 - 11:42 PM
#47
Posted 15 October 2004 - 11:55 PM
Edited by 123456, 27 October 2004 - 04:40 PM.
#48
Posted 16 October 2004 - 12:12 AM
Saddam Hussien and others who who followed him were murders of the iraqi people. One known fact was a guy who was a servant or other speaking of one of saddam's sons placing honey over a woman and letting starving dogs kill and eat her. I pesonally have seen videos on the internet of fingers been chopped off and bombs being place in people's shirts blowing them up supposedly from Saddam's Times in Iraq.
There is no doubt that Saddam and his command&control apparatus were evil (I don't use this term lightly). I find it curious then, that US Secretary of Defense and former special US middle east envoy Donald Rumsfeld would be meeting with Saddam on March 24, 1983, when it was known at that point that Saddam had used mustard and tabun nerve gas on Iranian troops. [huh]
http://images.google...eld-hussein.jpg
#49
Posted 16 October 2004 - 01:22 AM
It could be the internet, and not being able to hear the person speak this, but one reading this gets the impression of lip service being given to something....
There is an old saying, learn how to behave from those who do not. In this case it would be government who thinks they know better then us what is good for us; res ipsa loquitur:
Hillary Clinton on tax cuts:
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
#50
Posted 16 October 2004 - 04:49 PM
"It is, of course, desired that the state exhibit a high degree of respect for individual rights"
It could be the internet, and not being able to hear the person speak this, but one reading this gets the impression of lip service being given to something....
Scott, it must be the internet, because no "lip service" was taking place.
The government is a tool of Industry, especially in a mixed economic system such as ours, which is heavily skewed toward the right end of the spectrum. It is when the influence and power of Industry (which is not directly held to account by the people) comes to have a disproportionate influence in creating and maintaining legislation that individual freedom often falls by the way side. Most of the "oppression" which is viewed as coming from governmental origins, is in all probability a direct result of corporate greed and malfeasance.
At the same time I am not discounting the imperfection of democracy and majority rule. It is not a perfect system, and the memetics of the masses is just as susceptible (if not more so) to corruption and faulty reasoning as any other system which history has come up with to date. Indeed, as I believe you have said, every democracy in human history has failed. However, you failed to mention that not just every democracy, but every government (period) has failed.
I am genuinely curious as to what a Libertarians position is on how best to limit the power and influence of industry... [glasses]
DonS
#51
Posted 16 October 2004 - 11:05 PM
I'm short on time so just a brief comment.
I'm no expert and really know very little about what libertarians position is on many things.
I understand your point about industry, but the trial lawyers assocation makes industry look like mother Theresa. At least industry produces something as opposed to the trials lawyers who just (for a large part) parasitize things. The McDonalds coffee suit is just one example. What plans do you have in your...preferred way of doing things for dealing with this?
#52
Posted 22 October 2004 - 12:54 AM
By Bob Whitby
Published 10/14/04
It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe, George W. Bush has betrayed you, specifically and repeatedly.
Are you a law-and-order type? Then you should probably know that Bush has an arrest record (see reason No. 24). Are you a devout Christian? Millions of people just like you think Bush is defiling God's creation with his ruinous environmental policies (reason 20); and God's man on earth himself calls Bush's war wrong and immoral (reason 21). Perhaps you voted for Bush because you fondly recall the days when Republicans stood for fiscally conservative government? Those days are gone, friend (see reasons 64 to 71). Do you think of yourself as an intelligent, rational adult capable of making your own decisions about the world around you? Bush doesn't (No. 28). Maybe you're scared that the terrorists are coming, and think W. is the one who will stop them. Read reasons 1 through 16.
Unless you are the CEO of a large corporation (that donated heavily to Bush's campaign), Bush does not have your best interests at heart. Those are the facts.
Consider the material below a primer, the Reader's Digest version of why you shouldn't vote for Bush. There are thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – of similar facts not included here for space reasons. Whole topics had to be cut; there's no mention of Bush's assault on civil liberties via the USA PATRIOT Act, for example, and no mention of the fact that he cannot explain why he didn't fulfill his commitment in the National Guard.
So pick a reason, any reason, and don't vote for Bush Nov. 2.
FEEL SECURE?
1. Former President Bill Clinton briefing President-elect Bush on security issues in December 2000: "I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn't get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to." Source: Testimony by Clinton, published in the 9/11 Commission Report
2. Upon taking office, Bush proposed cutting more than $500 million in counterterrorism funding from the Justice Department. Source: "Condi gets a reality check," Center for American Progress, April 8, 2004
3. On Sept. 10, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected an appeal from the FBI for more money to fight terrorism in the 2002 budget. Source: Toronto Star, April 13, 2004
4. On Sept. 11, 2001, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice planned to deliver a speech about national security that made no mention of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalists. Source: CNN.com, April 1, 2004
5. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice: "The title of the [Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Source: Testimony before the 9/11 Commission, April 8, 2004
6. George W. Bush, April 11, 2004: "The P.D.B. was no indication of a terrorist threat." Source: The New York Times, April 12, 2004
7. On July 24, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial jets and started traveling only on chartered government planes. When asked about the change, Ashcroft cited a "threat assessment" by the FBI. Source: The Village Voice, April 13, 2004
8. In the week after Sept. 11, 2001, at least eight planes carried 140 passengers out of the country. Many of the passengers were Saudi Arabian royalty, while about 24 of them were members of the bin Laden family. One of the flights, on Sept. 13, took off from Tampa to Lexington, Ky. The White House denied that the flight ever took place, but records produced in June under a Freedom of Information Act request prove that it did. Sources: The Boston Globe, April 11, 2004; St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004
9. An agency of the Treasury Department assigned to blocking the financial resources of terrorists has five times as many agents investigating Cuban embargo violations than it does tracking Osama bin Laden. Source: Associated Press, April 29, 2004
10. In April, the State Department announced that terrorism incidents worldwide had dropped from 198 in 2002 to 190 in 2003. In June the State Department announced that it had made a mistake, and that terrorism incidents had actually risen, from 205 in 2002 to 208 in 2003. Source: The New York Times, June 23, 2004
11. The 9/11 Commission reported in June that there is "no credible evidence" linking Al Qaeda to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Vice President Dick Cheney continues to assert that the two are connected. Source: The New York Times, June 16, 2004
12. The Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization (MKO), a group of Iranian Marxist rebels, is officially considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. But members of the same group under American guard in an Iraqi camp are classified as "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention. The MKO, which assassinated several Americans in the 1970s, is dedicated to overthrowing the Iranian government. Source: The Christian Science Monitor, July 29, 2004
13. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.: "When you realize that only 3 percent of the cargo containers coming into this country are being inspected, you see the opportunity for a great deal of mischief by terrorists." Source: Associated Press, Feb. 17, 2004
14. According to Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Gen. Tommy Franks, the man who ran the war in Afghanistan, thinks the war in Iraq has diverted attention from where it should be: Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Source: Associated Press, Sept. 6, 2004
15. "West Virginia's top Army Reserve spokesman says the Iraq war was a mistake, and President Bush should be voted out of office." Source: The Charleston Gazette, Sept. 6, 2004
16. George W. Bush responding to NBC-TV reporter Matt Lauer Aug. 29, regarding the war on terror: "I don't think you can win it." Source: The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2004
CHRISTIAN = CHRIST-LIKE, W
17. Bush is in hot water with Southern Baptists for urging churches to turn over lists of congregations for his campaign. "I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Source: USA Today, July 4, 2004
18. An evangelical Christian website, BushRevealed.com, urges Christians not to vote for Bush because he "continues, to justify the wicked; from advancing the homosexual agenda, to funding abortionists, to praising Islam, to signing unconstitutional bills into law that further socialism and shred our Bill of Rights," according to a press release on the website.
19. Bush has not done enough to end abortion, says Dr. Patrick Johnson, vice chairman of the Ohio Constitutional Party. "G.W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing, but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing." Source: "Why Christians should not vote for George W. Bush," published on the website IntellectualConservative.com
20. Bush is defiling God's creation with his environmental policies, says the National Council of Churches, a New York group that represents 50 million churchgoers in Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox congregations. "In the spirit of shared faith and respect, we feel called to express grave moral concern about [the Bush administration's] your 'Clear Skies' initiative – which we believe is The Administration's continuous effort to weaken critical environmental standards to protect God's creation." Source: CNN.com, April 22, 2004
21. Pope John Paul II strongly opposed the war in Iraq, calling it a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified. Source: Houston Catholic Worker, July-August, 2003
22. Cardinal James Francis, former archbishop of Denver, accused Bush of moral failure in launching the war in Iraq. "Why did the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense say there was an immediate danger to the peace of American society by the proximate use of weapons that would come from Iraq, either directly or through al Qaeda? Why did they say that when they didn't have direct evidence?" Source: Reuters, May 18, 2004
23. The Bush administration has established new eligibility requirements for a range of government programs, resulting in 36,000 seniors being cut off from meal programs, 532,000 families losing assistance with home heating, 8,000 homeless kids being tossed out of education programs, 50,000 kids being cut from after-school programs, and 33,000 kids no longer being eligible for childcare benefits. Source: Bushwhacked, Life in George W. Bush's America, by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2003
THESE TWO ARE IN CHARGE?
24. Bush was arrested for drunk driving Sept. 4, 1976. He was also arrested for stealing a Christmas wreath while a student at Yale University, an incident he denied in a 1998 interview with the Dallas Morning News. Sources: Associated Press, Nov. 3, 2000, The Guardian, Nov. 6, 2000
25. "You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." Source: George W. Bush, Tennessee, Feb. 21, 2001
26. In speeches Bush has confused the names of two international terrorists at least 11 times, crediting Abu Nidal – who attacked airports in Rome and Vienna in 1985, killing 20 – with the work of Abul Abbas, the infamous mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro in 1985. Source: Associated Press, Sept. 20, 2004
27. Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom was furious with Bush after his state visit in 2003 caused extensive damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace. Bush's army of "clod-hopping security service men" trampled exotic plants, and his helicopter damaged trees, some almost 200 years old, and traumatized her flock of flamingos. Source: Daily Mirror, Nov. 23, 2003
28. "It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child. I know as a parent I would sacrifice for all my children." White House chief of staff Andrew Card, at a speech to Republican delegates from Maine and Massachusetts. Source: The Boston Globe, Sept. 2, 2004
29. Pentagon recruiters were spotted in Quebec and Ontario in the winter of 2003 trying to recruit Inuits and other natives to join the U.S. Army. The recruiters claimed that under the 1794 Jay Treaty, they had the right to be there because aboriginal Canadians held dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship. Source: The Village Voice, Dec. 24, 2003
30. During his time in Congress, Vice President Dick Cheney opposed Nelson Mandela's release from a South African prison, voted against banning "cop killer" bullets and voted against nutrition programs for children 10 times. Source: Dick, The Man Who Is President, by John Nichols, The New Press, 2004
31. From 1995 to 2000, while Cheney was the chief executive office of Halliburton, he frequently urged lifting economic sanctions in Iran. The company is under investigation for violating sanctions and doing business with Iran while Cheney was in charge. Source: The Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2004
TOUGH CRITICS
32. Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief under four presidents (including George W. Bush), a Republican with 30 years of government service under his belt, a hawk who believes in an assertive foreign policy and the author of Against All Enemies, says he tried for nine months before Sept. 11 to get someone in the Bush administration to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously. Source: Salon.com, March 3, 2004
33. Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly in February after weapons inspectors concluded Iraq has no WMDs: "I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this." Source: The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2004
34. Bush was determined to oust Saddam Hussein from the beginning of his presidency, according to ex-treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. "But I've been around a long time and know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions …." Source: The New York Times, Jan. 12, 2004
35. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who spoke at the Republican National Convention in New York: Bush is not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" on Iraq. Source: CNN.com, Sept. 19, 2004
36. Navy Lt. John Oliveira, a 16-year military veteran, who was the top public affairs officer aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt during the Iraq invasion before being honorably discharged: "I think it is very typical Bush administration callousness towards our military and to the American public, people all over the world, in the way they've handled their foreign affairs and callously going into combat." Source: Democracy Now! transcript, March 26, 2004
37. Al Lorentz, an Army Reserve staff sergeant with 20 years experience currently deployed in Iraq: "It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional." Lorentz wrote that statement in an essay titled "Why we cannot win" that was posted on the conservative web site LewRockwell.com Sept. 20. His superior officers have threatened to charge him with disloyalty and insubordination for the essay, meaning he could go to prison for up to 20 years. Sources: LewRockwell.com, Sept. 20; Salon.com, Sept. 29, 2004
38. David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons inspector, says Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. Source: The New York Times, Jan. 27, 2004
39. Conservative stalwart Richard A. Viguerie, chairman and CEO of American Target Advertising Inc., a right-wing direct mail company: "It doesn't look like the White House is as astute as we thought they were." Source: The New York Times, April 19, 2004
40. Conservative commentator and CNN anchorman Tucker Carlson: "I supported the war and now I feel foolish. I'm struck by how many people like me who were instinctively distrustful of government forgot to be humble in our expectations. The idea that the federal government can quickly transform the Middle East seems odd to me for a conservative." Source: The New York Times, May 16, 2004
41. David Brooks, former editor of The Weekly Standard and now a conservative columnist at The New York Times: "… over the past two years many conservatives have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration's inability to execute its policies semicompetently." Source: Salon.com, April 21, 2004
42. Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor beheaded on video in Iraq in May: "George Bush's ineffective leadership is a weapon of mass destruction, and it has allowed a chain reaction of events that led to the unlawful detention of my son which immersed him in a world of escalated violence." Source: The Guardian, May 21, 2004
43. Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board, advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a Bush ally and a leading advocate for the Iraq war: "I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error." Source: Toronto Star, May 26, 2004
44. Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the top American official in Iraq until the handover of power June 28, told private audiences that the Bush administration did not send enough troops to Iraq to establish security after toppling Saddam Hussein. Source: The New York Times, Oct. 5, 2004
45. Official statement from Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, a group of 27 government officials who have served every president since Harry S. Truman: "Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain." Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, June 16, 2004
CAN YOU SAY 'QUAGMIRE'?
46. As of Oct. 6, 1,061 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, 920 since Bush declared the end of major combat in May 1, 2003. Another 7,730 American soldiers have been wounded. Between 13,086 and 15,149 Iraqi civilians have been killed, an estimate because the Department of Defense doesn't track the number. Sources: Department of Defense; Iraqbodycount.net
47. September was one of the bloodiest of the 18 months that Americans have been in Iraq, and marked the first time that the death toll has risen for four straight months. Seventy-six U.S. troops were killed in September, 66 were killed in August, 54 in July and 42 in June. Source: Reuters, Sept. 30, 2004
48. The Bush administration has decided that bad news from Iraq is hurting their man's chances of re-election. The solution? Help write the all-is-well speech recently delivered by Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to Congress, send Iraqi Americans out on a PR tour, and restrict distribution of reports that say the insurgency is growing. Source: Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2004
49. A report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College concludes that invading Iraq was a "strategic error of the first order" that has resulted in an "unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland …." Source: "Bounding the global war on terrorism," U.S. Army War College, December 2003
50. The CIA's primary source for information indicating that two mobile labs found in Iraq were weapons labs was an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball." Source: The Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2004
51. According to the top American weapons inspector in Iraq, Saddam Hussein probably destroyed all stockpiles of banned weapons months after the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and had no ability to produce them when Bush invaded in March 2003. Source: The New York Times, Oct. 6, 2004
52. U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a 20-year military veteran assigned to the Pentagon in 2002: "There was a sort of groupthink, an adopted storyline: We are going to invade Iraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to have bases in Iraq. This was all a given even by the time I joined them, in May of 2002." Source: LA Weekly, Feb. 20, 2004
53. In 2002, Congress spent $5 million to fund the "Future of Iraq" project to plan for the aftermath of the invasion. Members of the project – Iraqi exiles and experts – ultimately issued 13 reports addressing likely postwar problems, including looting. When former Gen. Jay Garner was named to run postwar Iraq, before Paul Bremer took over, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told him not to bother reading the reports, and ordered him to fire the person in charge of the project. Source: "Blind into Baghdad," Atlantic Monthly, Jan. 27, 2004
54. An official Army history of the Iraq war written by the Army's Combined Arms Center states that U.S. troops were plagued by supply shortages from the beginning. "Tank engines sat on warehouse shelves in Kuwait … . Broken-down trucks were scavenged for usable parts. Artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their howitzers operating. Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals." Source: The New York Times, Feb. 3, 2004
55. "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures." Source: USA Today, March 29, 2004
56. Vice President Dick Cheney, March 17, 2003: "I think we'll be greeted as liberators, but there are scores to be settled. It's a tough neighborhood. We'll provide security." Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster, 2004
57. The Bush administration secretly diverted $700 million in terrorism-prevention funds for Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for invading Iraq. Source: Ibid.
58. According to the Army, Bush's proposed defense budget for 2005 did not include $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for helmets, underwear, boots and clothing; $21.5 million for automatic weapons; and $956 million for repairing equipment damaged in Iraq. The Marines said Bush's budget shorted them $40 million for body armor, helmets and other equipment. Source: MSNBC News, April 21, 2004
59. A 2002 Justice Department memo released by the White House suggests that in the war on terrorism, the president can authorize coercive interrogation methods with few limits, short of killing prisoners. Source: The New York Times, June 27, 2004
60. President Clinton took part in numerous ceremonies honoring war dead. Bush has yet to attend a single military funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. In March 2003, the Pentagon issued a directive banning news coverage of dead soldiers returning to or departing from air bases. Source: The New York Times, June 22, 2004
61. Bush, in his State of the Union speech, Jan. 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Prior to the speech, U.S. intelligence analysts had already decided the claim was based on forged documents. They drew their conclusion on the findings of Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador who traveled to Africa in February 2002 to investigate the "yellowcake incident" for the CIA. An underling working for National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice eventually took the blame for the infamous "16 words." Sources: Associated Press, July 10, 2003; BBC News, July 22, 2003
62. Joseph Wilson later stated he believes Bush advisor Karl Rove leaked his wife's identity as an undercover CIA operative in retaliation for Wilson refuting the yellowcake story. Source: CNN.com, Sept. 29, 2003
63. The invasion of Iraq was a "tremendous gift" to Osama bin Laden, according to the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. The book was officially written by "Anonymous," but it is widely known that CIA intelligence analyst Michael Scheuer is the author. Source: Agence France-Presse, Aug. 9, 2004
IT AIN'T HIS MONEY
64. The federal deficit for Fiscal Year 2004 is $422 billion, down slightly from the Congressional Budget Office's prediction of $477 billion, but still a historical record in terms of nominal dollars (though a smaller percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than under President Reagan in the 1980s). Source: "The Budget and Economic Outlook, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014," January 2004
65. Bush's military budget request for fiscal year 2005 is $420.7 billion, almost as large as military spending for the entire rest of the world. Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Washington, D.C.
66. George A. Akerlof, a winner of the Nobel prize and professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley: "Future generations and even people in 10 years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we are going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security." Source: Der Spiegel, July 29, 2003
67. "We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending." Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America
68. In 2005, the Bush administration has earmarked $10 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to build the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense system, which is twice the amount of money allotted to both the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard. The Pentagon's chief of testing has questioned whether the system would ever be able to distinguish between an enemy missile and a Mylar balloon decoy. Source: The New Yorker, Oct. 4, 2004
69. A Pentagon audit of the contractor Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, found "wide-spread deficiencies" in tracking billions of dollars. Halliburton sub-contractors charged the U.S. government $100 to wash a 15-pound bag of laundry, and abandoned trucks worth $85,000 when the tires went flat. Source: Financial Times, June 14, 2004
70. Bush refused to comply with United Nations auditors examining no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton worth more than $1 billion. Source: The Washington Post, July 16, 2004
71. Between May 2002 and July 2003, the Republican National Committee farmed out Bush's fund-raising and vote-seeking work to HCL BPO Services in Noida and Gurgaon, India. Seventy-five workers, making $9.25 per hour, called at least 20,000 Republican donors asking for money. Source: The Hindustan Times, May 24, 2004
TYCOON W
72. Ken Lay, the imprisoned CEO of Enron, was Bush's single largest campaign donor in the 2000 election. Source: Bushwhacked, Life in George W. Bush's America, by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2003
73. "Oil-field losses followed GeeDubya the way that cloud of dirt used to follow Pig Pen in 'Peanuts.'" Source: Ibid.
74. On at least three occasions, Bush has sold stock in a company in which he was a board member without filing the necessary disclosure forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Source: Ibid.
75. Bush took 20 times more money out of Harken Energy Corporation than Bill and Hillary Clinton took out of a failed Arkansas land deal infamously known as Whitewater. Source: Ibid.
76. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of payroll jobs has declined by about 900,000 since Bush took office. Source: The New York Times, Oct. 6, 2004
NO CHILD LEFT
77. For Fiscal Year 2005, Bush has proposed eliminating 38 programs from the Department of Education's budget, including Arts in Education, a program that provides scholarships for Olympic athletes, a program that puts technology centers in low-income neighborhoods, a foreign-language assistance program, literacy programs for prisoners and a program that promoted educational equity for girls and women. Source: United States Department of Education Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary
78. U.S. Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont: Bush's No Child Left Behind is a maneuver "that will let the private sector take over public education, something the Republicans have wanted for years." Source: Rutland [Vermont] Herald, Feb. 5, 2003
79. Bush passed his signature No Child Left Behind legislation in January 2002 on the promise that he would overhaul public education in this country. In September 2003, the Senate passed an education funding bill that included an increase of only 5 percent, the smallest in eight years. Source: "Funding a Movement: U.S. Department of Education Pours Millions into Groups Advocating School Vouchers and Education Privatization," published by People for the American Way, Nov. 18, 2003
80. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget underfunds No Child Left Behind by more than $8 billion. No Child Left Behind was underfunded by $6 billion in Fiscal Year 2003. Source: Ibid.
81. Bush's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget allocated $320 million to support private, for-profit charter schools. Source: House Budget Committee Briefing Book, Fiscal Year 2004
82. "The first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools shows charter schools students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools." Source: The New York Times, Aug. 17, 2004
SCIENCE SCHMIENCE
83. In 2002, the Bush administration planned to appoint Dr. W. David Hager, a Kentucky obstetrician/gynecologist, head of the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, until a Time magazine article noted that Hager refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women and recommended Scripture readings for headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Bush appointed him as a committee member instead. Source: Time magazine, Oct. 5, 2002
84. When William Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of New Mexico, was asked to join a panel that advises the National Institute on Drug Abuse, he thought he had been selected for his expertise on drug addiction. But when a Bush administration official called later and asked Miller if he had voted for the president, Miller said no. He was not appointed to the panel. Source: Los Angeles Times, Dec. 24, 2002
85. "… senior Bush officials suppressed and sought to manipulate government information about mercury contained in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on children's health and the environment." Source: Excerpt from the Union of Concerned Scientists' report "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," 2004
86. "A fact sheet on the [Centers for Disease Control] website that included information on proper condom use, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity was replaced in October 2002 with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. When a source inside the CDC questioned the actions, she was told that the changes were directed by Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services." Source: Ibid.
87. Despite objections from the staff of the Centers for Disease Control, information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer was posted on the National Cancer Institute website by Bush administration officials. Scientific studies have long refuted such a link. After The New York Times reported the story, the information was taken down. Source: The New York Times, Jan. 6, 2003
88. "Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease." Source: Statement issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, signed by more than 5,000 scientists, physicists, public health officials and ecologists since February
89. Women on the Bush staff are paid an average of $59,917, while men are paid an average of $76,624. The gap is due to the predominance of men in the highest-paying jobs. Source: The Washington Post, July 13, 2004
SCREW THE BIRDS, TREES
90. In June, the Bush administration presided over the largest lease sale ever, both in terms of acres leased and total bids received, when the Bureau of Land Management auctioned off 203,077 acres of public land in Utah for oil and gas exploration. Source: National Resources Defense Council
91. According to a biologist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, officials at the FWS knowingly used bad science when assessing the endangered Florida panther's habitat and viability in order to pave the way for proposed development in southwest Florida. Source: "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2004
92. " … new rules the EPA has finally proposed for regulating power plants' mercury emissions were discovered to have no fewer than 12 paragraphs lifted, sometimes verbatim, from a legal document prepared by industry lawyers." Source: Ibid.
93. President Jimmy Carter signed the Superfund Trust – a tax on chemical companies to pay for cleaning up the country's most toxic contaminated areas – into law in 1980. The tax was killed in 1995 as part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." President Clinton tried twice to reinstate it, but couldn't. Bush said he has no intention of reinstating the tax. Superfund, which had $3.3 billion in the bank in 1995, has essentially run out of money. Sources: Bushwhacked, Life in George W. Bush's America, by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2003; CNN.com; Feb. 24, 2002
94. New rules approved in July allow the Environmental Protection Agency to approve pesticides without consulting the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries regarding potential harm to wildlife. Source: The Washington Post, July 30, 2004
#53
Posted 22 October 2004 - 04:03 AM
#54
Posted 26 October 2004 - 08:50 PM
Florida 49%-46% Kerry
Ohio 49%-47% Kerry
Penn 50%-47% Kerry
Wisc 47%-47% tie
New Mex 48%-46% Kerry
Oregon 49%-44% Kerry
aaaa yeah, I'm thinking that these numbers are a little skewed, but hoping that I'm wrong. [glasses]
AmericanResearchGroup
#55
Posted 26 October 2004 - 09:06 PM
In my opinion polls are fun to torture yourself with, but when looking through the crystal ball there are no guarantees. Its probably more useful to look at the numbers from the battle ground states.
Rasmussen:
Florida: 48%-48%
Penn: 49%-46% Kerry
Ohio: 50%-46% Bush
#56
Posted 26 October 2004 - 10:24 PM
shows all the polls and
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
sums things up by state, again taking into account multiple polls
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 247 Bush 285
#57
Posted 27 October 2004 - 12:12 AM
I've already posted electoralvote.com. Truth be told, its back and forth every day of the week; as is every poll I've seen.
#58
Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:16 AM
#59
Posted 27 October 2004 - 03:36 PM
#60
Posted 27 October 2004 - 04:23 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users