Thursday, October 28, 2004
Video Proof of the Missing Explosives in Iraq
Looks like an embedded journalist with the 101st airborn actually filmed the explosives in the bunkers as they moved through Iraq. Bush claims that the explosives were moved before the 101 got there, but it appears to completely false. The explosives were there and never secured. See the video pictures yourself. (Link)
Even the Economist Magazine Endorsed Kerry
Even Economist Magazine, not know for being liberal by any stretch of the imagination endorsed John Kerry for President.
"Switching from its 2000 endorsement of President Bush, the Economist endorses Kerry for President in its upcoming issue. After writing that Bush changed the Iraq regime "so incompetently," the editors write that Kerry has "been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America's moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks."
"Switching from its 2000 endorsement of President Bush, the Economist endorses Kerry for President in its upcoming issue. After writing that Bush changed the Iraq regime "so incompetently," the editors write that Kerry has "been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America's moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks."
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Voter Harassment Against Hispanics In Georgia
Atkison County Georgia, October 26, 2004 - Ninety-eight letters were sent by the Board of Registrars to Hispanics registered to vote in Atkinson County. A version in both English and Spanish informs them of a challenge to their right to vote based on the fact that registered voters must be legal U.S. citizens.
The accuser, Frank Sutton says "We discovered quite accidentally that we had a lot of non-citizens registered to vote in Atkinson County." Under Georgia law, any voter can challenge the validity of any other registered voter. "We don't feel like anybody in the country should vote unless they are a citizen," Sutton says. So, Sutton walked down to the county regitrars office and asked for a list of all Hispanic voters in the county. Once he had the list, he challenged them all and a challenge letter was sent to all 98 hispanic voters. According to the letter those who vote has been challenged must show up at the courthouse Thursday at 7 PM for a hearing. That's when they must present evidence of citizenship. If they do not show up, their vote will not count, even if they are legitimate voters. Just think if you had to show up to a hearing prove you were an American every time you wanted to vote. (Link)
The accuser, Frank Sutton says "We discovered quite accidentally that we had a lot of non-citizens registered to vote in Atkinson County." Under Georgia law, any voter can challenge the validity of any other registered voter. "We don't feel like anybody in the country should vote unless they are a citizen," Sutton says. So, Sutton walked down to the county regitrars office and asked for a list of all Hispanic voters in the county. Once he had the list, he challenged them all and a challenge letter was sent to all 98 hispanic voters. According to the letter those who vote has been challenged must show up at the courthouse Thursday at 7 PM for a hearing. That's when they must present evidence of citizenship. If they do not show up, their vote will not count, even if they are legitimate voters. Just think if you had to show up to a hearing prove you were an American every time you wanted to vote. (Link)
Tort Reform Part Duex
This is a respons I got to my tort reform posting which I think is interesting and decided to repost as a differnet point of view I have not heard before.
Boomr wrote - "I agree that the system that most needs reforming (or outright banishment) is the jury system. It leads to a lack of uniformity across different areas of the country (and even the same state - travel from New Orleans to the next town over, and juries will be substantially different). And it often results in a complete slap in the face to black-letter law. Even in jurisdictions that already have damage caps, juries still regularly award vast sums BEYOND the cap, necessitating further litigation to reduce the award to comply with the cap set by law. The old adage rings true: a jury generally consists of 12 people too ignorant to get out of jury duty.
Personally, I think if the jury system is to be kept, there needs to be a better way to do it. I don't have any experience with criminal law, but I know a tiny bit about grand juries -- they're usually impanelled for a set amount of time, with the same set of jurors hearing a number of different cases. Basically, they're a limited form of professional juror. Why not bring this into the trial stage? If juries are so important, then give them more of an indoctrination into the process than the 5-minute spiel given to a room full of bored jurors at the beginning of jury service, and the limited instructions given by the judge after trial ends. Give them a salary and benefits, make them part of the institution. Or even make extended jury service (6 months to a year) a part of compulsory national or state service, like registering for the draft, but with a required training period prior to actually being seated on a jury. Send 'em to jury boot camp.
Do we really want our laws interpreted by people who, by the very nature of the jury selection process, have to PROVE that they know nothing about the law and the facts of the particular case they're hearing? I sure don't. I guarantee that if you remove the jury system, or alter it to remove its ability to ignore the law and rule by pure emotion, then the so-called "frivolous" lawsuits would decrease dramatically.
Basically, when politicians like Bush say they're fed up with the "frivolous lawsuits and the trial lawyers," they're basically saying that they're fed up with the juries who are swayed by the trial lawyers. Funny that the jurors who get swayed by lawyers are the same voters who get swayed by ultra-partisan campaign rhetoric, replete with the same lies and deceptions that fill a trial lawyer's closing arguments. In essence a campaign is nothing more than a trial in a bigger courtroom, with a bigger jury, and bigger deceptions. Bush and Kerry are both trial lawyers, they just paint themselves with the brush of a different career. By coming out aqainst frivolous lawsuits, they're really indicting their own participation in the big charade.
But that's the fundamental problem with a so-called "democratic" system, isn't it? All aspects of a democratic society are ruled by the people, the majority of whom are in the dead center of the bell curve for any statistical analysis (intelligence, income, religion, political leanings, etc.). The "democratic" system, whether manifesting in the jury system or in the Commeddia del'Arte play that is national politics, is ruled by the least common denominator. That's why trial lawyers and politicians pander to the "common man," don't want to appear to be as intellectual as they could possibly be (OK, maybe not in Bush's case), and do everything they can to make themselves as acceptable to as many people as possible, without making anyone angry. And that's why the country still has big problems.
Juries are bad, M'kay? "
Boomr wrote - "I agree that the system that most needs reforming (or outright banishment) is the jury system. It leads to a lack of uniformity across different areas of the country (and even the same state - travel from New Orleans to the next town over, and juries will be substantially different). And it often results in a complete slap in the face to black-letter law. Even in jurisdictions that already have damage caps, juries still regularly award vast sums BEYOND the cap, necessitating further litigation to reduce the award to comply with the cap set by law. The old adage rings true: a jury generally consists of 12 people too ignorant to get out of jury duty.
Personally, I think if the jury system is to be kept, there needs to be a better way to do it. I don't have any experience with criminal law, but I know a tiny bit about grand juries -- they're usually impanelled for a set amount of time, with the same set of jurors hearing a number of different cases. Basically, they're a limited form of professional juror. Why not bring this into the trial stage? If juries are so important, then give them more of an indoctrination into the process than the 5-minute spiel given to a room full of bored jurors at the beginning of jury service, and the limited instructions given by the judge after trial ends. Give them a salary and benefits, make them part of the institution. Or even make extended jury service (6 months to a year) a part of compulsory national or state service, like registering for the draft, but with a required training period prior to actually being seated on a jury. Send 'em to jury boot camp.
Do we really want our laws interpreted by people who, by the very nature of the jury selection process, have to PROVE that they know nothing about the law and the facts of the particular case they're hearing? I sure don't. I guarantee that if you remove the jury system, or alter it to remove its ability to ignore the law and rule by pure emotion, then the so-called "frivolous" lawsuits would decrease dramatically.
Basically, when politicians like Bush say they're fed up with the "frivolous lawsuits and the trial lawyers," they're basically saying that they're fed up with the juries who are swayed by the trial lawyers. Funny that the jurors who get swayed by lawyers are the same voters who get swayed by ultra-partisan campaign rhetoric, replete with the same lies and deceptions that fill a trial lawyer's closing arguments. In essence a campaign is nothing more than a trial in a bigger courtroom, with a bigger jury, and bigger deceptions. Bush and Kerry are both trial lawyers, they just paint themselves with the brush of a different career. By coming out aqainst frivolous lawsuits, they're really indicting their own participation in the big charade.
But that's the fundamental problem with a so-called "democratic" system, isn't it? All aspects of a democratic society are ruled by the people, the majority of whom are in the dead center of the bell curve for any statistical analysis (intelligence, income, religion, political leanings, etc.). The "democratic" system, whether manifesting in the jury system or in the Commeddia del'Arte play that is national politics, is ruled by the least common denominator. That's why trial lawyers and politicians pander to the "common man," don't want to appear to be as intellectual as they could possibly be (OK, maybe not in Bush's case), and do everything they can to make themselves as acceptable to as many people as possible, without making anyone angry. And that's why the country still has big problems.
Juries are bad, M'kay? "
More Voter Fraud?
As reported by the BBC, A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals. Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list". It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida. An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day." In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" -the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows. The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services. On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimidate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.
Sproul and Associates Again...
Reported by the Star Tribune in Minnesota - Three former canvassers for, Sproul and Associates, a company working in Minnesota to reelect President Bush have come forward to say they were paid bonuses for registering Bush supporters but got nothing for registering voters who favor challenger John Kerry. One man, who worked for only a few hours for the company, Sproul and Associates, said it was implied that he could be fired for coming back with only Kerry registration cards.
"I was told, your job is to bring in Republican cards. If you don't, then you won't be working here for very long," said Adam Banse, who quit after two hours.
While the state of Minnesota doesn't require voters to register by party affiliation, Sproul sought to determine political allegiances by having canvassers ask people they registered whether they supported Bush or Kerry or were undecided, according to the three canvassers.
While this is not "illegal" this is immoral. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of doing this kind of crap. I have spent hours standing on the street registering voters. I registered Republicans and Democrats alike and turned them all in. How can people consider themselves Americans while actively trying to suppress the other parties vote? These people are anything but Patriots and demean the memory and sacrifice of the people who faught/fight to protect our rights. Both parties... Please Stop!
"I was told, your job is to bring in Republican cards. If you don't, then you won't be working here for very long," said Adam Banse, who quit after two hours.
While the state of Minnesota doesn't require voters to register by party affiliation, Sproul sought to determine political allegiances by having canvassers ask people they registered whether they supported Bush or Kerry or were undecided, according to the three canvassers.
While this is not "illegal" this is immoral. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of doing this kind of crap. I have spent hours standing on the street registering voters. I registered Republicans and Democrats alike and turned them all in. How can people consider themselves Americans while actively trying to suppress the other parties vote? These people are anything but Patriots and demean the memory and sacrifice of the people who faught/fight to protect our rights. Both parties... Please Stop!
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
$225 Billion and Counting
Kerry was underestimating the cost of the war in the debates that Bush so vehemently denied. Bush is now going to be asking for an additional $75 billion to fight the war in Iraq, bringing the total to over $225 between Iraq and Afghanistan. (Link)
Kerry Winning in Paper Endorsements
While the national polls are split evenly, Kerry is leading 125-96 in the number of papers across the country that have made presidential endorsements. This is a marked turn around from 2000 when 175 papers endorsed Bush, and only 121 backed Gore. This year, 35 of the papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have now sided with Kerry. Only 4 that backed Gore in 2000 now endorse Bush. This is interesting for not only the traditional notions of public support, but there is also a deeper issue. While Journalists, admittedly, consider themselves to be more Democratic/Liberal, Editors are just the opposite and tend to more conservative than their writing staff. It is interesting to see such a large shift in this more conservative constituent for the Democratic contender. (Link)
Monday, October 25, 2004
Tort Reform and Why it Hurts You
Bush tries to pin all of the woes of the world on the legal system. I will explain to you why Bush style tort reform is no good.
1) The system does need reforming, I will agree to that, but it is not the trial lawyers who need to be reformed. It is the Jurors who need to be educated (I am speaking as a corporate defense attorney). The lawyers do not award the damages, the jurors do. That means you, your neighbor, your plumber, your local librarian, etc. If you, the juror did not award the massive damages, then they would not exist. If you have ever found a way to "skip" out of jury duty and you think these damages are too high, then you are partially to blame. If you blame the system, remember that you are the decision makers in the system.
2) Supply and demand - if you, the juror did not award large damages, then trial attorneys would not bring these suits. A trial attorney only gets paid if he wins. It is up to the jury to make this decision. If the jurors are consistently throwing bad cases out of court, trial attorneys won't bring them. Maybe these people who get these awards deserve them, maybe they don't, but it is the jury who awards them, not the trial lawyers.
3) Big Government in your affairs - If you like smaller government than why would you want the government making these decisions for you? That is what damage caps are, government control. Right now, you get to decide on a local and personal level the fate of the injured persons. You get to hear the story of both the injured and the person accused of injuring them. Why would you want this taken out of your hands and put it in the hands of a legislator? It is better left to the local and individual level.
4) Caps don't work - there have been several states to enact damage caps and none of them have seen overall damages go down. I will analogize it to the speed limit. if the speed limit is 55, you go 55 even though you could go slower. If the speed limit is 65 even though going 55 is safer. People feel an obligation to go the maximum. The same thing in jury awards. Without a cap, a jury may award an inured party $25,000 for a particular injury. But, if you cap it at $250,000, then the jury is more likely to award $250,000 even though the damages would normally only be $25,000. It is pure psychology.
5) More dangerous products - If a business have little incentive to protect themselves from suit, the less they protect you from injury. If they could maximize profits by making a less safe product without the fear of litigation, they will (e.g. the Ford Pinto). If you have ever traveled through a 3rd world country where litigation is rare, you take your life in your own hands. There is no incentive to protect the consumer.
6) Bad doctors - prior to law school I worked in the life/health insurance industry. I have read reports from thousands of doctors. 50% of doctors are really excellent, 25% are good, 20% won't kill you, and 5% are just plain bad doctors. Malpractice premiums are like car insurance premiums. If you get into a lot of accidents, your premium is higher. Enough accidents, and you get forced out of driving. Same thing happens in medicine. If you get sued a lot, your premium goes up. This is unfair to the majority of doctors who are very diligent, but why should a bad doctor be allowed to practice at my, the patients, expense. You would be appalled if you knew the number of people who are diagnosed with a life threatening disease that there doctor just plain missed. And they just didn't miss it once, but over and over. Diseases like diabetes and kidney failure. As the old saying goes... Question: what do you call a person who got all Cs in medical school.... Answer: Doctor. Sounds bad, but some people just should not be practicing medicine.
7) Insurance companies - 50% of an insurance companies profits comes from investments, not premiums. Due to poor management and the likes of Bush buddy, Ken Lay, the insurance companies had to raise premiums to cover their losses. Therefore, the major cause of the increase has nothing to with jury awards. In fact, only 1% of medical costs can be attributed to damage awards.
8) Your life - How much is it worth? How much is the ability to walk worth to you? $10,000? $50,000? $250,000? A million? most of us would not sell our legs for any price, but damage caps are just that, an arbitrary price. you are allowing a legislator to say an eye is worth $10,000, lower extremities are worth $150,000, your life is worth $250,000, etc. I think it is something that we as a society would want to decide for ourselves. Not legislators who are lobbied by the insurance industry.
1) The system does need reforming, I will agree to that, but it is not the trial lawyers who need to be reformed. It is the Jurors who need to be educated (I am speaking as a corporate defense attorney). The lawyers do not award the damages, the jurors do. That means you, your neighbor, your plumber, your local librarian, etc. If you, the juror did not award the massive damages, then they would not exist. If you have ever found a way to "skip" out of jury duty and you think these damages are too high, then you are partially to blame. If you blame the system, remember that you are the decision makers in the system.
2) Supply and demand - if you, the juror did not award large damages, then trial attorneys would not bring these suits. A trial attorney only gets paid if he wins. It is up to the jury to make this decision. If the jurors are consistently throwing bad cases out of court, trial attorneys won't bring them. Maybe these people who get these awards deserve them, maybe they don't, but it is the jury who awards them, not the trial lawyers.
3) Big Government in your affairs - If you like smaller government than why would you want the government making these decisions for you? That is what damage caps are, government control. Right now, you get to decide on a local and personal level the fate of the injured persons. You get to hear the story of both the injured and the person accused of injuring them. Why would you want this taken out of your hands and put it in the hands of a legislator? It is better left to the local and individual level.
4) Caps don't work - there have been several states to enact damage caps and none of them have seen overall damages go down. I will analogize it to the speed limit. if the speed limit is 55, you go 55 even though you could go slower. If the speed limit is 65 even though going 55 is safer. People feel an obligation to go the maximum. The same thing in jury awards. Without a cap, a jury may award an inured party $25,000 for a particular injury. But, if you cap it at $250,000, then the jury is more likely to award $250,000 even though the damages would normally only be $25,000. It is pure psychology.
5) More dangerous products - If a business have little incentive to protect themselves from suit, the less they protect you from injury. If they could maximize profits by making a less safe product without the fear of litigation, they will (e.g. the Ford Pinto). If you have ever traveled through a 3rd world country where litigation is rare, you take your life in your own hands. There is no incentive to protect the consumer.
6) Bad doctors - prior to law school I worked in the life/health insurance industry. I have read reports from thousands of doctors. 50% of doctors are really excellent, 25% are good, 20% won't kill you, and 5% are just plain bad doctors. Malpractice premiums are like car insurance premiums. If you get into a lot of accidents, your premium is higher. Enough accidents, and you get forced out of driving. Same thing happens in medicine. If you get sued a lot, your premium goes up. This is unfair to the majority of doctors who are very diligent, but why should a bad doctor be allowed to practice at my, the patients, expense. You would be appalled if you knew the number of people who are diagnosed with a life threatening disease that there doctor just plain missed. And they just didn't miss it once, but over and over. Diseases like diabetes and kidney failure. As the old saying goes... Question: what do you call a person who got all Cs in medical school.... Answer: Doctor. Sounds bad, but some people just should not be practicing medicine.
7) Insurance companies - 50% of an insurance companies profits comes from investments, not premiums. Due to poor management and the likes of Bush buddy, Ken Lay, the insurance companies had to raise premiums to cover their losses. Therefore, the major cause of the increase has nothing to with jury awards. In fact, only 1% of medical costs can be attributed to damage awards.
8) Your life - How much is it worth? How much is the ability to walk worth to you? $10,000? $50,000? $250,000? A million? most of us would not sell our legs for any price, but damage caps are just that, an arbitrary price. you are allowing a legislator to say an eye is worth $10,000, lower extremities are worth $150,000, your life is worth $250,000, etc. I think it is something that we as a society would want to decide for ourselves. Not legislators who are lobbied by the insurance industry.
Wolf Packs for Truth
It turns out that the wolves were lied to. "They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial!" said the alpha male. (Link)
"When the camera crew showed up, we wondered why they were all driving Hummers. Our agent assured us it was a Greenpeace commercial and they paid TWICE our hourly steak rate. Little did we know we were being tricked into this vicious campaign attack ad."
"We are not Terrorists!"
George W. Bush incorrectly labeled the wolfpack as a terrorist threat. "We are NOT terrorists. We do not associate with terrorists (unless you count that pesky wolverine) and FRANKLY, we don't even like terrorists!"
"We are a peaceful pack of wolves. All we want in life is to: "Live in tree-filled forests. Drink clean water from our rivers and streams. Breathe fresh and clean air" For these reasons, my Wolfpack and I support John Kerry for President of the United States!"
Little did they know that they made such a powerful commercial according to focus groups sponsored by Carl Rove that the Bush campaign has held this commercial as its secret weapon. So you can all be scared now.
"When the camera crew showed up, we wondered why they were all driving Hummers. Our agent assured us it was a Greenpeace commercial and they paid TWICE our hourly steak rate. Little did we know we were being tricked into this vicious campaign attack ad."
"We are not Terrorists!"
George W. Bush incorrectly labeled the wolfpack as a terrorist threat. "We are NOT terrorists. We do not associate with terrorists (unless you count that pesky wolverine) and FRANKLY, we don't even like terrorists!"
"We are a peaceful pack of wolves. All we want in life is to: "Live in tree-filled forests. Drink clean water from our rivers and streams. Breathe fresh and clean air" For these reasons, my Wolfpack and I support John Kerry for President of the United States!"
Little did they know that they made such a powerful commercial according to focus groups sponsored by Carl Rove that the Bush campaign has held this commercial as its secret weapon. So you can all be scared now.
Porter Goss and Another Bush Distortion
Many of you may have seen the latest ad by Bush/Cheney called "wolves" with attacks Kerry and the "liberals" for proposing cuts in intelligence spending back in the mid 90's. What the ad fails to mention is that Bush's appointee to head the CIA. Porter Goss, proposed cuts 3 times bigger that the "liberals" did in 1995. Porter Goss cuts were not only triple that of the "liberals," but it also specifically targeted the "human intelligence" that has recently been found lacking. So Bush attacks Kerry and the "liberals" for proposed cuts while he touts Porter Goss who proposed bigger cuts.
Hmm...Does that mean Porter Goss is a "liberal" or just weak on terrorism? Looks like the wolves aren't the problem since we have a fox guarding the hen house. (Link)
Hmm...Does that mean Porter Goss is a "liberal" or just weak on terrorism? Looks like the wolves aren't the problem since we have a fox guarding the hen house. (Link)
Friday, October 22, 2004
Silly Republicans
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain NewsOctober 19, 2004
A Lakewood Republican stealing campaign signs late one night got nabbed when he ran across a low- hanging driveway chain, fell face first onto a pilfered sign and the concrete and knocked himself unconscious.
Randal Wagner, 50, was loaded into an ambulance, treated at Lutheran Medical Center for abrasions and facial cuts and issued a summons.
A Lakewood Republican stealing campaign signs late one night got nabbed when he ran across a low- hanging driveway chain, fell face first onto a pilfered sign and the concrete and knocked himself unconscious.
Randal Wagner, 50, was loaded into an ambulance, treated at Lutheran Medical Center for abrasions and facial cuts and issued a summons.
Bushies Are Less Educated
As I reported earlier this month (Link), there is just something wrong with the general electorate. Polls were showing that the more a person was educated, the more likely they were to support Kerry, and the less educated were more likely to support Bush. This theory has been now reconfirmed by the University of Maryland (Link to Story) that Bushies are not as educated as Kerry supporters. I will re-emphasize that I am not calling Bushies "stupid," just "uneducated" and "uninformed."
the PIPA study found "A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."
"On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties."
None of this is true... NONE! Not one single report coming out of any government agency, not one story coming out of any respected news source supports any of these positions.
If you are a Bushie... PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE read, learn, understand. Pick up a paper and educate yourself. I live in NY now. I have to ride the subway to work every day. You guys are playing with my life...
the PIPA study found "A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."
"On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties."
None of this is true... NONE! Not one single report coming out of any government agency, not one story coming out of any respected news source supports any of these positions.
If you are a Bushie... PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE read, learn, understand. Pick up a paper and educate yourself. I live in NY now. I have to ride the subway to work every day. You guys are playing with my life...
More GOP Voting Fraud in Ohio
Ohio residents are reporting getting fake phone calls telling them that their polling place has changed locations. A victims of the scam claims a caller interrupted the couple’s dinner earlier this week. The caller said he was from the Franklin County Board of Elections. He told the elderly woman that her voting site had changed and that on Nov. 2 she and her husband should cast their ballots at a South Side precinct. The caller even left the phone number of the board. At no time, Elections Director Matthew Damschroder said, does the board call voters.
In a second scam, The caller tells voters their precincts have changed or the caller offers to pick up an absentee-ballot application, deliver the ballot to the voter and return the completed ballot to the elections office. (Link)
This is just another way for Republican Operatives can achive what they could not push through in other ways. (Link) & (Link)
In addition to Ohio, Students in Pennsylvania and Oregon have had their "voting registrations switched by teams of canvassers circulating bogus petitions and, in some cases, partially concealed voter registration forms students were requested to sign. After signing their names, the students were pressured into registering with the Republican Party by being told that their signatures otherwise would be invalid, or they were asked to fill out the signature and address portions of blank voter registration forms as proof of citizenship. In multiple instances, students already registered to vote have had their registrations changed without their consent, elections officials said yesterday." (Link). Sproul & Associates , the Republican backed voter registration firm that has been throwing out Democrats' registration cards, is also connected to the PA scam.
Normally, I try to make a humorous comment at the end of my blurbs, but these people just make me so sick.
In a second scam, The caller tells voters their precincts have changed or the caller offers to pick up an absentee-ballot application, deliver the ballot to the voter and return the completed ballot to the elections office. (Link)
This is just another way for Republican Operatives can achive what they could not push through in other ways. (Link) & (Link)
In addition to Ohio, Students in Pennsylvania and Oregon have had their "voting registrations switched by teams of canvassers circulating bogus petitions and, in some cases, partially concealed voter registration forms students were requested to sign. After signing their names, the students were pressured into registering with the Republican Party by being told that their signatures otherwise would be invalid, or they were asked to fill out the signature and address portions of blank voter registration forms as proof of citizenship. In multiple instances, students already registered to vote have had their registrations changed without their consent, elections officials said yesterday." (Link). Sproul & Associates , the Republican backed voter registration firm that has been throwing out Democrats' registration cards, is also connected to the PA scam.
Normally, I try to make a humorous comment at the end of my blurbs, but these people just make me so sick.
East Tehran
Baghdad looks like it will be changing its name to East Tehran. U.S. funded polls show that Islamic fundamentalists would win control of Iraq if the election were held today. The most popular politician is Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and is now receiving millions of dollars in aid from Iran, U.S. officials say. (Link)
Gee George, that sounds just dandy. We went in and spent billions of dollars to transform Iraq into Iran. Good job making us all so much safer... Next time, try sending in the cast from "queer eye for the straight guy." At least when they do a make over, they do it within a budget and in under a day.
Gee George, that sounds just dandy. We went in and spent billions of dollars to transform Iraq into Iran. Good job making us all so much safer... Next time, try sending in the cast from "queer eye for the straight guy." At least when they do a make over, they do it within a budget and in under a day.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Dude, Where's My Voting Booth?
More dirty tricks (Link) by the GOP. Republicans in Harrisburg PA. tried to change 63 polling places in minority neighborhoods at the last moment. The plan was created by Mark Pfeifle, a North Dakota Republican who has worked in Washington and helped run his party's convention in New York this summer and was imported to cause problems in Democratic minority communities. The City Commissioners turned down the plan because it would be confusing and unfair to voters to change polling places at the last moment. You have to give the GOP an "A" for effort though.
The Credit Card Debt from Hell
George Bush seems to be using the government as a big credit card. He charges everything and thinks nothing about how to pay it back. When taxes are cut below a level that the government can sustain itself, bad things happen and we, the average people, end up the losers because, like it or not, we will end up paying for it. It didn't work under Reagan, and it will not work now.
First of all, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not spur economic growth nearly as much as a tax cut for the lower and middle classes. When a middle income person pays less in taxes, they use that money to buy real goods. whether it is school supplies, clothing, electronics, etc., it goes back to create jobs for people who make things. When a wealthy person gets a tax cut, it goes into investments. The majority of this is in stocks. When a stock is bought or sold, it creates no new net profits for the company, and the sale itself is just a transfer of money from one person to another. Nothing is made in a factory, nothing is shipped by truck, and nothing is sold on the shelves of your local stores. Therefore cutting taxes for the top does little to create jobs.
Second, running up a huge deficit hurts the average person. When the deficit goes up, most often, so does inflation and interest rates. This means, while you may have extra money in your pocket from the tax cut, you are paying more at the register. You are also paying more on your interest charges for your home, car, student loan, etc. In the end you are no better, if not worse off, than before.
Third, the debt will not just disappear. It is like a credit card. You can charge things and it almost feels like free money, but in the end you still have to pay it back. Not only that, but in the end, because you are paying interest also, so it cost you more money in the long run than if you had paid as you go.
Fourth, government services benefit everyone. Even if you don't directly get a benefit from something, you still benefit indirectly. A good education system not only benefits those who have children in school, but it also benefits those who don't. An educated populace means better jobs (and more taxes into the system). An educated populace means more productive and efficient workers. An educated populace means less crime. An educated populace means less people on welfare. So, you can see that the ramifications of not paying for schools affects everyone. The same for other government services. Take fire departments. A well funded and well staffed fire department benefits you even if your house never burns down. The closer a station is to your house, and the better it can respond to emergencies means lower home owners insurance. Same goes for police departments, etc.
So, in the end, not only is society benefited by government services generally, but you are benefited directly even if you don't see it. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility will hurt you more in the long run than you will gain in the short run. We need to go back to the pay-as-you-go plan under Clinton.
First of all, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not spur economic growth nearly as much as a tax cut for the lower and middle classes. When a middle income person pays less in taxes, they use that money to buy real goods. whether it is school supplies, clothing, electronics, etc., it goes back to create jobs for people who make things. When a wealthy person gets a tax cut, it goes into investments. The majority of this is in stocks. When a stock is bought or sold, it creates no new net profits for the company, and the sale itself is just a transfer of money from one person to another. Nothing is made in a factory, nothing is shipped by truck, and nothing is sold on the shelves of your local stores. Therefore cutting taxes for the top does little to create jobs.
Second, running up a huge deficit hurts the average person. When the deficit goes up, most often, so does inflation and interest rates. This means, while you may have extra money in your pocket from the tax cut, you are paying more at the register. You are also paying more on your interest charges for your home, car, student loan, etc. In the end you are no better, if not worse off, than before.
Third, the debt will not just disappear. It is like a credit card. You can charge things and it almost feels like free money, but in the end you still have to pay it back. Not only that, but in the end, because you are paying interest also, so it cost you more money in the long run than if you had paid as you go.
Fourth, government services benefit everyone. Even if you don't directly get a benefit from something, you still benefit indirectly. A good education system not only benefits those who have children in school, but it also benefits those who don't. An educated populace means better jobs (and more taxes into the system). An educated populace means more productive and efficient workers. An educated populace means less crime. An educated populace means less people on welfare. So, you can see that the ramifications of not paying for schools affects everyone. The same for other government services. Take fire departments. A well funded and well staffed fire department benefits you even if your house never burns down. The closer a station is to your house, and the better it can respond to emergencies means lower home owners insurance. Same goes for police departments, etc.
So, in the end, not only is society benefited by government services generally, but you are benefited directly even if you don't see it. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility will hurt you more in the long run than you will gain in the short run. We need to go back to the pay-as-you-go plan under Clinton.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Got God? Pat and George Battle for His Ear
Who does God really talk to and who is just wacky? Both Pat and George claim to have a devine phone line. But they are getting different messages from upstairs...
CNN reported on an interview given by Pat Robertson, The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition. According to Robertson, "he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq." During the meeting Robertson says, "I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Bush replied, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
No Casualties?!?! This man is completely delusional. How could he expect to go to war and not lose a single soldier. Bush is bordering on clinically insane.
Robertson also claims, "The Lord told me it [Iraq] was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him [Bush] about casualties."
Now, here is my problem with the whole situation. Both men claim God speaks to them. If God is telling Pat it will be a disaster and God is telling George that the invasion will be a smashing success, someone has to be wrong. My humble opinion is that God speaks to neither of them. After all Pat Robertson has prayed for the death of at least 3 supreme court justices so Bush could appoint pro-life judges and also blamed 9/11 on the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays... not terrorists.
Either way, I don't want a leader who will make decisions by reading the "omens." I want someone who will make decisions by reading an actually CIA briefing (and understanding it). And if God really speaks to Bush, why didn't he warn him about the flu shots earlier...
CNN reported on an interview given by Pat Robertson, The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition. According to Robertson, "he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq." During the meeting Robertson says, "I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Bush replied, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
No Casualties?!?! This man is completely delusional. How could he expect to go to war and not lose a single soldier. Bush is bordering on clinically insane.
Robertson also claims, "The Lord told me it [Iraq] was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him [Bush] about casualties."
Now, here is my problem with the whole situation. Both men claim God speaks to them. If God is telling Pat it will be a disaster and God is telling George that the invasion will be a smashing success, someone has to be wrong. My humble opinion is that God speaks to neither of them. After all Pat Robertson has prayed for the death of at least 3 supreme court justices so Bush could appoint pro-life judges and also blamed 9/11 on the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays... not terrorists.
Either way, I don't want a leader who will make decisions by reading the "omens." I want someone who will make decisions by reading an actually CIA briefing (and understanding it). And if God really speaks to Bush, why didn't he warn him about the flu shots earlier...
New Charges Filed Against Fox, O'Reilly
The sleaziest man in TV broadcasting had his henchmen out on the morning shows yesterday and today smearing the name of the woman who accused him of sexually harassing her. AP wire is reporting a sex harassment lawsuit against talk show host Bill O'Reilly filed new accusations Tuesday, alleging she has lost her job because she complained to Fox about her alleged mistreatment. The amended lawsuit says Fox's "removal" of Mackris from her job "is in direct retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment at defendants Fox." It is a violation of New York law to fire an employee who complains of sexual harassment. Mackris alleged in her lawsuit last week that O'Reilly, 55 and married with two children, subjected her repeatedly to off-color sexual remarks and telephone sex talk.
O'Reilly has threatened to crush any former FOX employee women he has harassed, claiming "If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born. I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed." . This is not the first time the megalomaniac has let this anger get the better of him. O'Reilly's prior feud with comedian Al Franken helped the book sales of “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” shoot through the roof. The anchor is quoted "as fuming over Franken and suggesting darkly that Fox News would somehow destroy the comic."
FOX news moved to protect its biggest money maker over protecting the rights of its employees, having preemptively filed a civil suit in New York Supreme Court charging Mackris and her attorney with attempted extortion.
O'Reilly has threatened to crush any former FOX employee women he has harassed, claiming "If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born. I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed." . This is not the first time the megalomaniac has let this anger get the better of him. O'Reilly's prior feud with comedian Al Franken helped the book sales of “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” shoot through the roof. The anchor is quoted "as fuming over Franken and suggesting darkly that Fox News would somehow destroy the comic."
FOX news moved to protect its biggest money maker over protecting the rights of its employees, having preemptively filed a civil suit in New York Supreme Court charging Mackris and her attorney with attempted extortion.
Voter Fraud Details
While both parties are accusing each other this year of voter fraud, the majority seems to be from the Republican side. To name a few...
In New Mexico, Felipe Roibal was the victim of a forged voter registration card. "A copy of the form provided to Roibal by the Rio Arriba County clerk's office in Española appeared to shed some light on what transpired. Apparently, someone was trying to change where he was registered and his political party: From Santa Fe County to Rio Arriba County and from the Democratic Party to Republican, using an address he alleged came from the phone book."
In Pennsylvania, Sproul & Associates, claimed to be a "nonpartisan" voter registration drive in Western Pennsylvania has triggered accusations that workers were cheated out of wages and given instructions to avoid adding anyone to the voter rolls who might support the Democratic presidential nominee. Michele Tharp, of Meadville, who said she was sent out to canvass door-to-door and outside businesses in Meadville, Crawford County. "We were only to register Republicans." Sproul & Associates is also being accused of tearing up voter registration cards in Nevada and in Oregon.
In Florida, Alachua County's elections supervisor gave more than 500 voter registration forms to local prosecutors because some people said their party affiliation was fraudulently changed to Republican by a student working for the GOP.
Also in Florida , authorities in at least three Florida counties are investigating more than 4,000 suspicious voter-registration forms submitted on behalf of college students, some of whom say they already had registered elsewhere or that their party affiliation was changed to Republican without permission.
Thousands of Americans may be denied their right to vote this year due to this repugnant behavior. Republican or Democrat, there is no candidate so worthy of winning that any American should be denied this most important and cherished right.
In New Mexico, Felipe Roibal was the victim of a forged voter registration card. "A copy of the form provided to Roibal by the Rio Arriba County clerk's office in Española appeared to shed some light on what transpired. Apparently, someone was trying to change where he was registered and his political party: From Santa Fe County to Rio Arriba County and from the Democratic Party to Republican, using an address he alleged came from the phone book."
In Pennsylvania, Sproul & Associates, claimed to be a "nonpartisan" voter registration drive in Western Pennsylvania has triggered accusations that workers were cheated out of wages and given instructions to avoid adding anyone to the voter rolls who might support the Democratic presidential nominee. Michele Tharp, of Meadville, who said she was sent out to canvass door-to-door and outside businesses in Meadville, Crawford County. "We were only to register Republicans." Sproul & Associates is also being accused of tearing up voter registration cards in Nevada and in Oregon.
In Florida, Alachua County's elections supervisor gave more than 500 voter registration forms to local prosecutors because some people said their party affiliation was fraudulently changed to Republican by a student working for the GOP.
Also in Florida , authorities in at least three Florida counties are investigating more than 4,000 suspicious voter-registration forms submitted on behalf of college students, some of whom say they already had registered elsewhere or that their party affiliation was changed to Republican without permission.
Thousands of Americans may be denied their right to vote this year due to this repugnant behavior. Republican or Democrat, there is no candidate so worthy of winning that any American should be denied this most important and cherished right.
Bush Relatives for Kerry
Just because I think this is humorous, check out Bush Relatives for Kerry because "Blood is thicker than oil"
Maybe I Was Right About Sinclair
On October 13th I reported on suspect trading by insiders of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group. As reported by MSNBC today, "Meanwhile, a lawyer said he planned to sue on behalf of shareholders, alleging insider trading by top executives as well as damage from the decision to air the film."
Some Sinclair top executives may have sealed there own fate by brining attention to themselves.
Some Sinclair top executives may have sealed there own fate by brining attention to themselves.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Bush Blames Defect for Flu Shot Shortage
Now, I am not specifically blaming the flu vaccine shortage on bush, but let's really look at the issue...
1) The Bush administration outsourced the job to England (the government, not private sector has control over this).
2) Now that the company he outsourced it too can't fulfill its obligations, he want to get it from Canada. But wait, isn't it Bush won't allow seniors to import Canadian drugs because they are "not safe." He claims as soon as they determine if Canadian drugs are safe, he'll let them into the country. If it takes him another 4 years to determine the flu vaccine quality, it looks like a lot of people will be getting sick this year.
3) Bush says, "if you are not at risk, just don't get a shot this year." Wow! Sounds like government rationing to me. Didn't he claim this is what Kerry's health care plan would do?
4) Now, the government is threatening to prosecute doctors who give shots to not-at-risk people. Sounds kind of like government control to me. Yet another claim Bush made against Kerry. Rationing and a big government take over... Hmmm.
Yet another instance of Bush's record not matching his rhetoric.
1) The Bush administration outsourced the job to England (the government, not private sector has control over this).
2) Now that the company he outsourced it too can't fulfill its obligations, he want to get it from Canada. But wait, isn't it Bush won't allow seniors to import Canadian drugs because they are "not safe." He claims as soon as they determine if Canadian drugs are safe, he'll let them into the country. If it takes him another 4 years to determine the flu vaccine quality, it looks like a lot of people will be getting sick this year.
3) Bush says, "if you are not at risk, just don't get a shot this year." Wow! Sounds like government rationing to me. Didn't he claim this is what Kerry's health care plan would do?
4) Now, the government is threatening to prosecute doctors who give shots to not-at-risk people. Sounds kind of like government control to me. Yet another claim Bush made against Kerry. Rationing and a big government take over... Hmmm.
Yet another instance of Bush's record not matching his rhetoric.
Dick Cheney - The 8 O'Clock Show is Completely Different then the 7 O'Clock
With Dick Cheney's Comedy Tour hitting Carroll, Ohio today, the big guy hit the stage in his best performance yet. The Veep evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around." He went on to say, "sure, Bush can't wrap him mind around it, but hey, that is why you are really voting for me and not him anyway... I got the smarts baby." Cheney's show went on from there, "The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans." Cheney added, "Sure, our administration has done nothing to confront nations like Iran or North Korea who are actually producing or are trying to produce nuclear weapons. I know there is actually more nuclear proliferation today then there was before we took office, but that is why we need to have a second term. We were just to preoccupied with other, more important things, during the first term. It is hard work destroying the environment... There is so much of it."
- Seriously, its scary how these guys will say anything. Quoting Jon Stewart, "Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record. But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record."
- Seriously, its scary how these guys will say anything. Quoting Jon Stewart, "Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record. But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record."
Jon Stewart Takes on Crossfire
I have been dying to see this all weekend long and I finally found a web link to the CNN interview. I highly recommend checking it out as a non-partisan attack on the system as a whole.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Study Finds Abortion Rising Under Bush
If the goal of President Bush is to reduce the number of abortions performed each year, apparently, the best way would be for him to resign.
Reported by Yubanet.com - In a study by Glen Stassen, a Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, conducted a study that finds abortion rising under Bush due to Economic Policies. Professor Stassen finds that contrary to popular assumption, abortion has risen in the U.S. during George W. Bush's presidency and that the increase is linked to economic policy. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," said Glen Stassen. Citing connections to rising unemployment and soaring healthcare costs, Stassen noted that "economic policy and abortion are not separate issues. They form one moral imperative." Using data from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Guttmacher Institute, and reporting by individual states, Stassen found that U.S. abortion rates declined 17.4% in the 1990s to a 24-year low when Bush took office. Many expected that downward trend to continue under the conservative president, but Stassen found the opposite: 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected under the pre-2000 conditions, and abortion has risen significantly in those states reporting multi-year abortion statistics.
To read Professor Stassen's column "Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits" in Sojourner's weekly email-zine, Sojomail, please go to: www.sojo.net
Reported by Yubanet.com - In a study by Glen Stassen, a Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, conducted a study that finds abortion rising under Bush due to Economic Policies. Professor Stassen finds that contrary to popular assumption, abortion has risen in the U.S. during George W. Bush's presidency and that the increase is linked to economic policy. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," said Glen Stassen. Citing connections to rising unemployment and soaring healthcare costs, Stassen noted that "economic policy and abortion are not separate issues. They form one moral imperative." Using data from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Guttmacher Institute, and reporting by individual states, Stassen found that U.S. abortion rates declined 17.4% in the 1990s to a 24-year low when Bush took office. Many expected that downward trend to continue under the conservative president, but Stassen found the opposite: 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected under the pre-2000 conditions, and abortion has risen significantly in those states reporting multi-year abortion statistics.
To read Professor Stassen's column "Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits" in Sojourner's weekly email-zine, Sojomail, please go to: www.sojo.net
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" Sued for Libel
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" is already being shown as false. A Vietnam veteran shown in a documentary criticizing Sen. John Kerry's anti-war activities filed a libel lawsuit against the movie's producer Monday, saying the film falsely calls the veteran a fraud and a liar. Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said in the suit that "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" combines footage of him appearing at a 1971 war protest with narration that claims that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds" who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform." Campbell attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing that he received a Purple Heart and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service in Vietnam. By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer
Bush Panders to His Rich Base Supporters
Once, Bush told a dinner audience of major contributors, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." Well, now Bush is promising more to the haves and have mores if he is re-elected.
By Patrick Healy, Boston Globe Staff - Bush describing his post election agenda to a private luncheon for major donors last month and saying: ''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing-in, with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security."
1) Privatizing social security - this will cost the American tax payer over 2 trillion dollars, while also creating hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to big Wall Street banks. It is a huge govenment givaway
2) Fundamental tax reform. We saw what happened last time. 35% of the tax cut went to the top 1% of the country. How much more can the U.S. afford to cut taxes before we become a banana republic.
3) Tort reform - This means allowing the abolishment of consumer safety. Why should a company care if they hurt you if they make more money making a dangerous product than how much they will loose if there is a cap on punitive damages. Tort reform makes the Pinto incident able to happen all over again and on a much larger scale.
If you are middle or lower class and you vote for Bush, you have allowed yourself to be duped. Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Where do you fit in?
By Patrick Healy, Boston Globe Staff - Bush describing his post election agenda to a private luncheon for major donors last month and saying: ''I'm going to come out strong after my swearing-in, with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security."
1) Privatizing social security - this will cost the American tax payer over 2 trillion dollars, while also creating hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to big Wall Street banks. It is a huge govenment givaway
2) Fundamental tax reform. We saw what happened last time. 35% of the tax cut went to the top 1% of the country. How much more can the U.S. afford to cut taxes before we become a banana republic.
3) Tort reform - This means allowing the abolishment of consumer safety. Why should a company care if they hurt you if they make more money making a dangerous product than how much they will loose if there is a cap on punitive damages. Tort reform makes the Pinto incident able to happen all over again and on a much larger scale.
If you are middle or lower class and you vote for Bush, you have allowed yourself to be duped. Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Where do you fit in?
Friday, October 15, 2004
Karl Rove Questioned by Federal Grand Jury
President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified Friday before a federal grand jury trying to determine if an administration official leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer. Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel, according to an administration official who spoke only on condition of anonymity because such proceedings are secret. Before testifying, Rove was interviewed at least once by investigators probing the leak. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have also been interviewed in their offices, with Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez and press secretary Scott McClellan among the administration officials appearing before the grand jury. Disclosure of the identity of an undercover intelligence officer can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the leaker knew about the officer's secret status. By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer
Tom DeLay Attacks Own Party Members
Tom Delay is such a megalomaniac, he is willing to even send his henchmen out to attack his own party members in an attempt to seek revenge for recent admonishments for bribery, influence peddling, and campaign finance issues.
The Hill Oct. 13th - House ethics committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said last week that Republican lawmakers have threatened him in the wake of his panel's recent admonishments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Asked what response he has received from House Republicans since two ethics committee admonishments were issued in a span of seven days, Hefley said, "I've been attacked; I've been threatened." However, Hefley would not reveal who or how many of his colleagues had threatened him, or what retaliation had been threatened.
This demands immediate action. How can we trust anything in this government when the House Majority Leader can threaten Ethics Committee Chair. Tom Delay completely undermines the credibility of the government.
The Hill Oct. 13th - House ethics committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said last week that Republican lawmakers have threatened him in the wake of his panel's recent admonishments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Asked what response he has received from House Republicans since two ethics committee admonishments were issued in a span of seven days, Hefley said, "I've been attacked; I've been threatened." However, Hefley would not reveal who or how many of his colleagues had threatened him, or what retaliation had been threatened.
This demands immediate action. How can we trust anything in this government when the House Majority Leader can threaten Ethics Committee Chair. Tom Delay completely undermines the credibility of the government.
The Mary Cheney Flap
A lot has been said over the last couple of days regarding the mentioning of Mary Cheney by John Kerry in the last debate. Lynn Cheney decries this as in invasion of privacy and an un-fair use of her daughter's sexuality. The more I think about this, the more I actually become mad at Mama and Papa Cheney and the more sorry I feel for Mary.
First, I will comment on the issue of bringing in a family members personal life into politics. Both parties are very hypocritical regarding this. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry will use the personal lives of average Americans for political gains. How many times have you heard a politician say something along the lines of, "and as I was visiting Topeka last week, I met a woman named Judy Salinger. Judy lost her job at the widget factory 6 months ago and now has no health care. Judy tells me that she has been reduced to eating canned dog food and making home made insulin out of discarded cow pancreases." These politicians use and abuse our pain, our suffering, and our problems for political gain. If we are up for grabs, why are politicians families off limits? Why am I fair game, and their kids aren't? Why does it make a difference if a politician stands up there are says, "Jone Smith is a gay American who deserves respect," or "Mary Cheney is a gay American who deserves respect." Is Joan somehow less of a person because she is not the child of a candidate. Either everyone is fair game, or leave us all out. Don't try to have it both ways.
Secondly, why is Lynn Cheney so upset about the issue? Kerry did not attack Mary. He did not call her names. In fact, he did the very opposite. Kerry talked about her as a human being, and how she deserves the same respect and rights that every other American is afforded. It is the Republican party that paints homosexuals as the freaks and less than human. It is the Republicans who invade our bedrooms to legislate morality. Lynn should be thanking Kerry for talking about the issue in terms of acceptance and tolerance, not hate and sin. She should be happy that at least some Americans accept her for who she is and doesn't question the "why."
Third, I feel sorry for Mary. To me, it must be very hard for her to feel truly accepted in her family. I think Mary's mother still has a fundamental shame about her daughters sexuality and her Father's boss wants to change the constitution in order to deny her the rights she should be entitled to. Her father is one of the most powerful people in the party that openly hates homosexuals. Mary was not even allowed up on stage at the Republican National Convention as her father accepted the nomination for VP. When have you even not seen the children of a nominee on stage after their acceptance speech?
Fourth, Mary's sexuality is well known. She is openly gay, and her father has talked about her in his stump speeches. Mary has campaigned in the gay community. If she can be used my her father, than yes, she is "fair play." Not only that, but it is the Republicans who have made homosexuality such a big issue this year. They are the ones trying to divide the nation over gay marriage.
First, I will comment on the issue of bringing in a family members personal life into politics. Both parties are very hypocritical regarding this. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry will use the personal lives of average Americans for political gains. How many times have you heard a politician say something along the lines of, "and as I was visiting Topeka last week, I met a woman named Judy Salinger. Judy lost her job at the widget factory 6 months ago and now has no health care. Judy tells me that she has been reduced to eating canned dog food and making home made insulin out of discarded cow pancreases." These politicians use and abuse our pain, our suffering, and our problems for political gain. If we are up for grabs, why are politicians families off limits? Why am I fair game, and their kids aren't? Why does it make a difference if a politician stands up there are says, "Jone Smith is a gay American who deserves respect," or "Mary Cheney is a gay American who deserves respect." Is Joan somehow less of a person because she is not the child of a candidate. Either everyone is fair game, or leave us all out. Don't try to have it both ways.
Secondly, why is Lynn Cheney so upset about the issue? Kerry did not attack Mary. He did not call her names. In fact, he did the very opposite. Kerry talked about her as a human being, and how she deserves the same respect and rights that every other American is afforded. It is the Republican party that paints homosexuals as the freaks and less than human. It is the Republicans who invade our bedrooms to legislate morality. Lynn should be thanking Kerry for talking about the issue in terms of acceptance and tolerance, not hate and sin. She should be happy that at least some Americans accept her for who she is and doesn't question the "why."
Third, I feel sorry for Mary. To me, it must be very hard for her to feel truly accepted in her family. I think Mary's mother still has a fundamental shame about her daughters sexuality and her Father's boss wants to change the constitution in order to deny her the rights she should be entitled to. Her father is one of the most powerful people in the party that openly hates homosexuals. Mary was not even allowed up on stage at the Republican National Convention as her father accepted the nomination for VP. When have you even not seen the children of a nominee on stage after their acceptance speech?
Fourth, Mary's sexuality is well known. She is openly gay, and her father has talked about her in his stump speeches. Mary has campaigned in the gay community. If she can be used my her father, than yes, she is "fair play." Not only that, but it is the Republicans who have made homosexuality such a big issue this year. They are the ones trying to divide the nation over gay marriage.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Deja Vu... All Over Again
Does anyone else see that George Bush has turned into the Al Gore of 2000 election? He is so mixed up, he doesn't know if he is coming or going. He put on three different faces for three different debates, changing each time to better fit what the polls told him people wanted to see out of him. At the first debate he was peevish and antsy. The second, he was angry and aggressive. The third, you could not wipe that goofy grin off of his face to save your life (it was truely scary). He is also making wild claims like he proposed hydrogen cars and that he is an "environmental steward." Not even remembering his own quotes. Looks like he has fallen into the same pit Gore did.
Bill O'reilly Sued for Sexual Harassment
If you would like to read the tawdry complaint filled against Bill O'Reilly, go to the Smoking Gun. I especially like the part about the Thai whore who "blew his mind." Kind of puts his childrens' book in a whole new perspective.
Bush and the Black Congressional Caucus
Kerry mistakenly claimed Bush "hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus" made up of 39 African-American members of the House.
Bush, in fact, met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti and refused to leave until the president met with them. According to Ellijah Cummings, Democratic Maryland Reprehensive, the Caucus boarded a bus and was met at the White House by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. The Caucus was told that the president was not on the premises, but miraculously showed up 15 minutes later when the Caucus informed the White House that they would not leave until they met with the president.
So, Bush was right... but also wrong. The CBC should not have to force their way into a meeting with the president.
Bush, in fact, met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti and refused to leave until the president met with them. According to Ellijah Cummings, Democratic Maryland Reprehensive, the Caucus boarded a bus and was met at the White House by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. The Caucus was told that the president was not on the premises, but miraculously showed up 15 minutes later when the Caucus informed the White House that they would not leave until they met with the president.
So, Bush was right... but also wrong. The CBC should not have to force their way into a meeting with the president.
Did I Say That?
Perhaps Bob Shieffer should have given the president a moment to pull his foot out of his mouth last night when Bush made one gaffe after another especially like claiming he never said he was not concerned about bin Laden anymore:
Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
But in a news conference on March 13, 2002, as reported by the official White House transcripts, "So I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you... Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn't match his record. He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times.
Of the 98 votes cited by Bush, 43 were on budget resolutions that are not made in to laws. Of the remaining 55 votes, 16 were on President Bill Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, six were on a 1998 proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack, seven were on a 1996 budget resolution, and another six were on the 1997 budget resolution. - Wahington Post Fact Checker
BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about -- oh, nevermind.
Wah?... Is it better to quote underground news sources? Tabloids like Fox? What the hell are you talking about? Is it the voices again?... just take a deep breath.
BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas.
This is something to be proud of?
BUSH: Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage.
Unlike 1996, a GOP president resides in the White House, and he is not calling for a minimum-wage increase. Scared by the hot button topic of minimum wage and the proposed $1.85 increase by Ted Kennedy, Mitch McConnell proposed an alternitive minimum wage hike of $1.10 per hour in combination with the so-called “comp-time bill,” which would allow private-sector employees to choose paid time off instead of overtime pay. It would also include provisions which would diminish workers’ rights, such as safety, health standards. Mitch McConnell aslo voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage in Nov 1999.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/041404/wage.aspx
BUSH: And therefore just kids were being shuffled through the school. And guess who would get shuffled through? Children whose parents wouldn't speak English as a first language just move through.
Does that include Barbara and Jenna? There father doesn't speak English as a first language.
SCHIEFFER: He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges?
NO! NO! NO! He didn't ask you about a litmus test! He never said "litmus" in the entire question. He asked you "would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade." I heard it. Everyone else in the room heard it. How could you not hear it? I guess you were as focused on the questions as you were on bin Laden.
BUSH: That's the access I believe is necessary, is to make sure every child learns to read, write, add and subtract early. I wished I would have learned that stuff, too... Because it sad when, I, the leader of the free world never learned to read.
Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
But in a news conference on March 13, 2002, as reported by the official White House transcripts, "So I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you... Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn't match his record. He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times.
Of the 98 votes cited by Bush, 43 were on budget resolutions that are not made in to laws. Of the remaining 55 votes, 16 were on President Bill Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, six were on a 1998 proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack, seven were on a 1996 budget resolution, and another six were on the 1997 budget resolution. - Wahington Post Fact Checker
BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about -- oh, nevermind.
Wah?... Is it better to quote underground news sources? Tabloids like Fox? What the hell are you talking about? Is it the voices again?... just take a deep breath.
BUSH: Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas.
This is something to be proud of?
BUSH: Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage.
Unlike 1996, a GOP president resides in the White House, and he is not calling for a minimum-wage increase. Scared by the hot button topic of minimum wage and the proposed $1.85 increase by Ted Kennedy, Mitch McConnell proposed an alternitive minimum wage hike of $1.10 per hour in combination with the so-called “comp-time bill,” which would allow private-sector employees to choose paid time off instead of overtime pay. It would also include provisions which would diminish workers’ rights, such as safety, health standards. Mitch McConnell aslo voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage in Nov 1999.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/041404/wage.aspx
BUSH: And therefore just kids were being shuffled through the school. And guess who would get shuffled through? Children whose parents wouldn't speak English as a first language just move through.
Does that include Barbara and Jenna? There father doesn't speak English as a first language.
SCHIEFFER: He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges?
NO! NO! NO! He didn't ask you about a litmus test! He never said "litmus" in the entire question. He asked you "would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade." I heard it. Everyone else in the room heard it. How could you not hear it? I guess you were as focused on the questions as you were on bin Laden.
BUSH: That's the access I believe is necessary, is to make sure every child learns to read, write, add and subtract early. I wished I would have learned that stuff, too... Because it sad when, I, the leader of the free world never learned to read.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Why Bush's Health Care Plan Fails
Bush's health care savings plan does almost nothing to actually help the million of Americans that are without insurance. In my prior life, I worked for Life/Health insurance companies, and I would not touch his plan with a ten foot pole if given a choice between what I have now and the Bush plan.
First of all, the Bush health savings plan is just another way to help big banks and investment firms on Wall Street. Just like Bush's "social security privatization plan" Wall Street would make billions off the fees to manage the funds you contribute to your account. They are drooling over the possibilities.
Secondly, how can a person earning $35,000 a year afford to put enough money away for this plan? I make much more than that and it would still hurt to save up for the plan along with retirement, down payment for a house, etc. Bush is out of touch with real America if he thinks there is so much surplus in our paychecks.
Third, Under the Bush plan, high deductible insurance plans would become the norm. That means a person would have to pay up to $5000 before they received a penny in insurance coverage. Even though the savings plan is tax free, that only means the average family is getting about a 20% savings. If a deductible is $5000, you are still paying the equivalent of $4000 out of pocket before insurance kicks in. Additionally, It could take years for a family to save up enough money to even cover the deductible, and that would not take into account having to withdraw funds for yearly Doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. Anything happens in the early years and you could be screwed. A person with a chronic illness would be the biggest looser and could virtually never keep up with the out of pocket costs of this plan.
Fourth, once your accounts funds are exhausted, that's it, you have to start all over again. One major illness could wipe out years of savings and leave you with nothing for additional medical costs. Deductibles are yearly, meaning, a family could have to shell out $10,000 over two years or $15,000 over 3 for major medical problems that roll from one year to the next.
In essence, this will do nothing for the 45 million uninsured Americans and possibly make those with insurance even worse off.
First of all, the Bush health savings plan is just another way to help big banks and investment firms on Wall Street. Just like Bush's "social security privatization plan" Wall Street would make billions off the fees to manage the funds you contribute to your account. They are drooling over the possibilities.
Secondly, how can a person earning $35,000 a year afford to put enough money away for this plan? I make much more than that and it would still hurt to save up for the plan along with retirement, down payment for a house, etc. Bush is out of touch with real America if he thinks there is so much surplus in our paychecks.
Third, Under the Bush plan, high deductible insurance plans would become the norm. That means a person would have to pay up to $5000 before they received a penny in insurance coverage. Even though the savings plan is tax free, that only means the average family is getting about a 20% savings. If a deductible is $5000, you are still paying the equivalent of $4000 out of pocket before insurance kicks in. Additionally, It could take years for a family to save up enough money to even cover the deductible, and that would not take into account having to withdraw funds for yearly Doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. Anything happens in the early years and you could be screwed. A person with a chronic illness would be the biggest looser and could virtually never keep up with the out of pocket costs of this plan.
Fourth, once your accounts funds are exhausted, that's it, you have to start all over again. One major illness could wipe out years of savings and leave you with nothing for additional medical costs. Deductibles are yearly, meaning, a family could have to shell out $10,000 over two years or $15,000 over 3 for major medical problems that roll from one year to the next.
In essence, this will do nothing for the 45 million uninsured Americans and possibly make those with insurance even worse off.
Treasury Secretary John Snow Lying for the Prez
Bush's Treasury Secretary John Snow is as out of touch with reality as his boss. Speaking to a Republican group in Ohio, Snow said, "Claims like the one that Bush will be the first President to end a term with fewer jobs than when he started are nothing more than 'myths.'" and then further claimed the "projected 5.4 trillion dollar budget surplus Bush inherited from the Clinton administration and allegedly squandered was nothing more than a 'mirage.'" This is in direct contrast to the But he made no direct reference to the Labor Department's payroll survey, generally considered the most reliable measure, which showed 2.6 million jobs lost from January 2001 to August 2003 and only 1.8 added back since then.
The transcripts of the interview stopped there, but I hear that he also claimed that the Apollo landing was a "Hollywood hoax" and that Elvis was alive and well, living in Hawaii with Jimmy Hendrix and Jim Morrison. Either Snow is a liar, or completely clueless. Either one is scary enough.
The transcripts of the interview stopped there, but I hear that he also claimed that the Apollo landing was a "Hollywood hoax" and that Elvis was alive and well, living in Hawaii with Jimmy Hendrix and Jim Morrison. Either Snow is a liar, or completely clueless. Either one is scary enough.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Assails Bush Administration Record on Civil Rights
More problems for Mr. Bush as his "compassionate conservative" title gets whittled down to just "conservative" yet again. "U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Assails Bush Administration Record on Civil Rights" refers to a lengthy draft report that churns out in footnoted detail how Bush "has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues nor taken actions that matched his words" requotes Michael Janofsky of the New York Times. The draft, prepared by the commission staff, accuses Mr. Bush of civil rights failures in education, voting, gay and lesbian issues, affirmative action, housing, environmental justice, racial profiling and hate crimes and concludes by saying, "Failing to build on common ground, the Bush administration missed opportunities to build consensus on key civil rights issues and has instead adopted policies that divide Americans."
GOP Senate Candidate Warns of Lesbianism
Just incase you missed this one (its a classic), the GOP nominee for Senate in Oklahoma, Tom Coburn (also known for sterilizing women against their wishes), warned parents of lesbianism in OK schools. Coburn claimed, "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?" This claim was quickly rebuked by Joe McCulley, a school superintendent, "He knows something I don't know. We have not identified anything like that. We have not had to deal with any issues on that subject — ever," McCulley chuckled - AP wire Oct. 11th
My question is how much does Mr. Coburn think about lesbian school girls making out in the bathroom?
My question is how much does Mr. Coburn think about lesbian school girls making out in the bathroom?
Wall Street Re-evaluates its GOP Leanings
Wall Street appears to be shifting their allegiances from Republican to Democratic this election cycle. Normally staunchly Republican, Wall Street appears to be evenly divided between the two parties in donating money this year. According to MSNBC's Ronald Jones, 52% of those funds have gone to Republicans and 48% to the Democrats. How has Bush squandered the Republican's usual stronghold support of the world's financial capital? Reasons given for this shift is that the Democratic party is not the same as it was 20 years ago. No longer is it seen as a tax and spend party that it used to be. Additionally, “There are businesses that believe the foreign policy pursued by the Bush Administration has made it harder for them to do business overseas, and some think the ballooning deficit has been a disaster and they are taking a new look at the Democratic Party.”
Apparently Bush's self title of being "conservative" doesn't include "fiscally."
Apparently Bush's self title of being "conservative" doesn't include "fiscally."
Albuquerque Tribune Endorses Kerry
In a very well put editorial, the Albuquerque Tribune endorsed John Kerry Today. To read the "much better than I could ever say it" article, read below:
The Tribune endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.
He has earned the job - and the chance to return security, prosperity, freedom, consensus and the American identity to a nation at odds with the world and itself.
The United States has lost its way under President Bush, who too often has failed on both foreign and domestic fronts. Worse, he has been unable to unite a deeply divided nation.
Bush, whom The Tribune endorsed in 2000, has offered simplistic slogans to complex problems, while Kerry sees complicated problems and offers the promise of appropriate solutions - complex or not.
The reality is the world is not a simple place, seldom black or white, and Kerry knows that intuitively. He understands the gray, the nuance - and that easy-bake solutions like nuclear weapons, Navy carriers and conservative or liberal platitudes usually don't apply or work.
This is critical in addressing big picture issues from Iraq to the economy. Kerry's style, attention to detail and global view will serve this nation better in the long run.
The Tribune believes Kerry offers the best leadership for the vast majority of New Mexicans and other Americans, who identify with his vision of who we are, where we need to go and how best to get there.
Why not Bush?
The occupant of the Oval Office and his running mate, Dick Cheney, have changed the paradigm that governs American ideals. Some of that, as Bush accurately notes, has been a product of Sept. 11, 2001. But the damage Bush has done to U.S. interests and respect, both internally and externally, has been devastating and long term.
From the war in Iraq and the acidic sections of the Patriot Act to global warming and national energy policy, Bush's foreign and domestic policies have been based on secrecy, fear, distortion and misinformation.
For these reasons, we urge independent and undecided voters in particular to double-check what Bush says against what he has done. Bush continues to insult American intelligence with his:
Mistaken and unreal views of the war in Iraq, with its mounting costs in American and Iraqi lives, money and good will.
Failure to focus U.S. military might on pursuing our real enemy, the terrorists.
Willingness to compromise American freedoms, in contrast to a resistance to develop and implement safeguards to protect our people, borders, ports and infrastructure from future terror attacks.
Unabashed flip-flop of the conservative fiscal ideal, turning a balanced federal budget - indeed, a huge surplus - into the largest deficit in U.S. history.
Unrelenting attack on 30 years of environmental promise to benefit political friends in the fossil fuel and utility industries.
Willingness to accept a $422 billion federal deficit, a ballooning $7.42 trillion national debt and grossly unfair tax cuts.
These all come at the expense of ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying Americans - and our children's children, who will be stuck paying the bill.
Kerry has earned command
In very sharp contrast, Kerry has demonstrated tested qualities of leadership and imagination. The hallmarks of his Senate record and presidential candidacy are less partisan and more fundamentally democratic and moderate.
And moderation, in an increasingly polarized nation, is absolutely vital.
Kerry embraces transparency, consensus and compromise. As does our Constitution, he will seek to include, not exclude.
Although labeled a flip-flopper, Kerry represents the essence of statesmanship. Unlike Bush and Cheney, he has the courage to alter political positions and courses when he finds he was mistaken.
Take the central issue of national security and its core issues of combating terrorism and the war in Iraq. Kerry has correctly assessed the mistake that is the situation in Iraq; has promised to redirect and focus U.S. military efforts back to pursuing al-Qaida and other terrorist groups; and has pledged to significantly and substantially bolster the U.S. military, including our defensive posture at home.
While he has set no timetable for leaving Iraq and says we must remain there to fix the tragic mess, he presents a more realistic plan to end the U.S. occupation, transfer power to the Iraqi people and extricate our troops as soon as practical.
He has promised to rebuild our international alliances, embrace alliances and treaties, and lead by example, not threat.
For example, Kerry, like Bush, recognizes that nuclear proliferation represents the greatest threat to the United States and world peace. But he would shift our focus to the real problems of a nuclear Iran and North Korea and enjoin U.S. proliferation.
Kerry's agenda reflects a recognition that America can do better. He promises a government that stops and reverses the export of jobs; restores fiscal discipline by cutting the deficit in half; rolls back the tax cut for the wealthy to help fund education and health care; reforms the health care and drug industries to lower costs; and doesn't put public schools in a bind in fixing what's wrong in our classrooms.
A Kerry administration also promises to restore sound science to public policy decisions in human environmental protection, medical research and protecting the environment - particularly in the still grand, but threatened, American West.
Kerry embraces ideas. He seeks to represent the most fundamental of American values, ideals and hopes. He is committed to a government contract based on the premise "of, by and for the people."
The Tribune endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.
He has earned the job - and the chance to return security, prosperity, freedom, consensus and the American identity to a nation at odds with the world and itself.
The United States has lost its way under President Bush, who too often has failed on both foreign and domestic fronts. Worse, he has been unable to unite a deeply divided nation.
Bush, whom The Tribune endorsed in 2000, has offered simplistic slogans to complex problems, while Kerry sees complicated problems and offers the promise of appropriate solutions - complex or not.
The reality is the world is not a simple place, seldom black or white, and Kerry knows that intuitively. He understands the gray, the nuance - and that easy-bake solutions like nuclear weapons, Navy carriers and conservative or liberal platitudes usually don't apply or work.
This is critical in addressing big picture issues from Iraq to the economy. Kerry's style, attention to detail and global view will serve this nation better in the long run.
The Tribune believes Kerry offers the best leadership for the vast majority of New Mexicans and other Americans, who identify with his vision of who we are, where we need to go and how best to get there.
Why not Bush?
The occupant of the Oval Office and his running mate, Dick Cheney, have changed the paradigm that governs American ideals. Some of that, as Bush accurately notes, has been a product of Sept. 11, 2001. But the damage Bush has done to U.S. interests and respect, both internally and externally, has been devastating and long term.
From the war in Iraq and the acidic sections of the Patriot Act to global warming and national energy policy, Bush's foreign and domestic policies have been based on secrecy, fear, distortion and misinformation.
For these reasons, we urge independent and undecided voters in particular to double-check what Bush says against what he has done. Bush continues to insult American intelligence with his:
Mistaken and unreal views of the war in Iraq, with its mounting costs in American and Iraqi lives, money and good will.
Failure to focus U.S. military might on pursuing our real enemy, the terrorists.
Willingness to compromise American freedoms, in contrast to a resistance to develop and implement safeguards to protect our people, borders, ports and infrastructure from future terror attacks.
Unabashed flip-flop of the conservative fiscal ideal, turning a balanced federal budget - indeed, a huge surplus - into the largest deficit in U.S. history.
Unrelenting attack on 30 years of environmental promise to benefit political friends in the fossil fuel and utility industries.
Willingness to accept a $422 billion federal deficit, a ballooning $7.42 trillion national debt and grossly unfair tax cuts.
These all come at the expense of ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying Americans - and our children's children, who will be stuck paying the bill.
Kerry has earned command
In very sharp contrast, Kerry has demonstrated tested qualities of leadership and imagination. The hallmarks of his Senate record and presidential candidacy are less partisan and more fundamentally democratic and moderate.
And moderation, in an increasingly polarized nation, is absolutely vital.
Kerry embraces transparency, consensus and compromise. As does our Constitution, he will seek to include, not exclude.
Although labeled a flip-flopper, Kerry represents the essence of statesmanship. Unlike Bush and Cheney, he has the courage to alter political positions and courses when he finds he was mistaken.
Take the central issue of national security and its core issues of combating terrorism and the war in Iraq. Kerry has correctly assessed the mistake that is the situation in Iraq; has promised to redirect and focus U.S. military efforts back to pursuing al-Qaida and other terrorist groups; and has pledged to significantly and substantially bolster the U.S. military, including our defensive posture at home.
While he has set no timetable for leaving Iraq and says we must remain there to fix the tragic mess, he presents a more realistic plan to end the U.S. occupation, transfer power to the Iraqi people and extricate our troops as soon as practical.
He has promised to rebuild our international alliances, embrace alliances and treaties, and lead by example, not threat.
For example, Kerry, like Bush, recognizes that nuclear proliferation represents the greatest threat to the United States and world peace. But he would shift our focus to the real problems of a nuclear Iran and North Korea and enjoin U.S. proliferation.
Kerry's agenda reflects a recognition that America can do better. He promises a government that stops and reverses the export of jobs; restores fiscal discipline by cutting the deficit in half; rolls back the tax cut for the wealthy to help fund education and health care; reforms the health care and drug industries to lower costs; and doesn't put public schools in a bind in fixing what's wrong in our classrooms.
A Kerry administration also promises to restore sound science to public policy decisions in human environmental protection, medical research and protecting the environment - particularly in the still grand, but threatened, American West.
Kerry embraces ideas. He seeks to represent the most fundamental of American values, ideals and hopes. He is committed to a government contract based on the premise "of, by and for the people."
Bush attack ad is False
Bush undermines his credibility even more as he attacks John Kerry by not only quoting him out of context, but by attacking him on something he said himself. Bush attacked Kerry for calling terrorism a "nuisance," even though that is not what was actually said. The quote was taken from a larger quote in the New York Times Sunday magazine, that his goal as president in waging war on terrorism would be to "get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Kerry was not calling terrorism a nuisance, but wanted to diminish the level of terrorism to such a low level that it is no longer the focus of our lives. He wants to return to a time where we can focus on education and health care. Bush shows his character when he will knowingly distort, twist, and misquotes his opponent.
Bush is not only playing fast a loose with words, but himself said that the war on terrorism is "un-winnable." As mush as I dislike the man, I happen to partially agree with Bush on this. Throughout human history, there have been a segment of the population that is willing to kill innocent people in order to prove a point, but we can remove many of the factors that lead someone to take such an extreme measure and reduce the number of terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush has a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism and how to fight it. Brute force alone will not fix our terrorism problem. Take Chechnya for example. This is not a new problem for the Russians. Due to a century of brutally suppressing the Chechens, Russia was able to subjugate the region, but it also made for fertile breeding ground for separatists and terrorists. Now they are paying the consequences of their grandfathers' actions. Even though Russia continues to use extreme force to fight terrorism (makes our Iraq effort look like a day at Disneyland), terrorism has grown even more extreme. While the killing of innocent school children is never acceptable under any circumstance, understanding the root causes of why there is hate is vital in winning this war, or at least diminishing it enough to be only a nuisance. My fear is that my grandchildren will pay the consequences of Bush's actions and him not understanding the root causes of why someone is willing to kill himself to hurt us. Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to understand this. We need to understand the causes of terrorism, and terrorists need to understand that we will never give in and their actions only make us more resolute and less sympathetic.
Bush is not only playing fast a loose with words, but himself said that the war on terrorism is "un-winnable." As mush as I dislike the man, I happen to partially agree with Bush on this. Throughout human history, there have been a segment of the population that is willing to kill innocent people in order to prove a point, but we can remove many of the factors that lead someone to take such an extreme measure and reduce the number of terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush has a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism and how to fight it. Brute force alone will not fix our terrorism problem. Take Chechnya for example. This is not a new problem for the Russians. Due to a century of brutally suppressing the Chechens, Russia was able to subjugate the region, but it also made for fertile breeding ground for separatists and terrorists. Now they are paying the consequences of their grandfathers' actions. Even though Russia continues to use extreme force to fight terrorism (makes our Iraq effort look like a day at Disneyland), terrorism has grown even more extreme. While the killing of innocent school children is never acceptable under any circumstance, understanding the root causes of why there is hate is vital in winning this war, or at least diminishing it enough to be only a nuisance. My fear is that my grandchildren will pay the consequences of Bush's actions and him not understanding the root causes of why someone is willing to kill himself to hurt us. Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to understand this. We need to understand the causes of terrorism, and terrorists need to understand that we will never give in and their actions only make us more resolute and less sympathetic.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Advertisers with the Sinclair Broadcasting Group
Here is a link to a list of Sinclair Broadcasting Group advertisers.
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx
Saddam and Osama Join the GOP
MSNBC's Priya David reported on a Cheney speech where his introducer began with, "When everyone asks me, the country's so divided, so polarized, how is it that the troopers, the national troopers behind me, troopers here in New Jersey and especially the east region, can so easily make the choice that we made, I ask them this: What if by some miracle Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were able to go to the polls? Is there any chance that they would be voting Republican?" Crowd: "NO!" Jones: "Who do you think they would vote for?" Crowd: "Kerry!" Jones: "And then we'd do the opposite."
By all means, Hussein and Osama bin Laden would be Republicans if they lived in the US. Lets look at the similarities.
1) Guns - I think it is safe to say both Saddam and Osama are pro-gun voters. Each one would be card carrying NRA members.
2) Taxes - Both would be in the top 2% of the wage earners. I doubt either one of them pay much, if anything in taxes. They would be all for the Bush tax cut.
3) Oil business - All three, Osama, Saddam, and George have ties to, and derive a good portion of their millions from the oil industry.
4) Freedom of Speech - All three like to limit the right of people to speak their minds in an open and respectful manner.
5) Religion - George and Osama are both extremely religious and believe that religion should drive the policies of government. George and Osama both believe that religion should be taught in schools, and Saddam believed he was god.
6) Science - All three don't like scientific progress and believe it is antithetical to how a society should function.
7) Environment - George won't sign Kyoto and I doubt that Osama or Saddam would either. Environmental issues don't appear to be the top (or even the middle) of anyone's priorities.
8) WMDs - All three are/were interested in developing weapons of mass destruction. George wants to build new nuclear bombs, and the other two want them also.
9) Homosexuals - All three anti-gay.
10) Social issues - You don't hear much about any of them talking about creating the "great society."
Hate to say this, but ideologically, the two men Republicans talk so much about hating, are one of them. There is no doubt they would vote Republican.
By all means, Hussein and Osama bin Laden would be Republicans if they lived in the US. Lets look at the similarities.
1) Guns - I think it is safe to say both Saddam and Osama are pro-gun voters. Each one would be card carrying NRA members.
2) Taxes - Both would be in the top 2% of the wage earners. I doubt either one of them pay much, if anything in taxes. They would be all for the Bush tax cut.
3) Oil business - All three, Osama, Saddam, and George have ties to, and derive a good portion of their millions from the oil industry.
4) Freedom of Speech - All three like to limit the right of people to speak their minds in an open and respectful manner.
5) Religion - George and Osama are both extremely religious and believe that religion should drive the policies of government. George and Osama both believe that religion should be taught in schools, and Saddam believed he was god.
6) Science - All three don't like scientific progress and believe it is antithetical to how a society should function.
7) Environment - George won't sign Kyoto and I doubt that Osama or Saddam would either. Environmental issues don't appear to be the top (or even the middle) of anyone's priorities.
8) WMDs - All three are/were interested in developing weapons of mass destruction. George wants to build new nuclear bombs, and the other two want them also.
9) Homosexuals - All three anti-gay.
10) Social issues - You don't hear much about any of them talking about creating the "great society."
Hate to say this, but ideologically, the two men Republicans talk so much about hating, are one of them. There is no doubt they would vote Republican.
Monday, October 11, 2004
SEC Fraud by One of Sinclair's Top Insiders?
I decided to look at Sinclair Brocasting Groups major mutual fund investors to make sure I was not invested in any of them. Luckily, I was not, but I also noteced that one of Sinclair's top insiders sold a substantial portion of his holdings over a 5 day period right before the stock slid into a consistant downturn. Robert E Smith sold shares in 19 seperate small batches between April 2nd, 2004 and April 7th, 2004 ranging from $13.30 to $13.10. The stock started a downward slide several days later to end up at its current price of $7.38. This may be perfectly innocent, but perhaps someone should check ths out a little due to the history of Bush buddies using insider trading opportunities.
Insider Shr. Trd. in Thds Date Price
SMITH ROBERT E (18) 04/07/04 13.2
SMITH ROBERT E (20) 04/07/04 13.24
SMITH ROBERT E (1) 04/07/04 13.26
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/07/04 13.23
SMITH ROBERT E (7) 04/07/04 13.25
SMITH ROBERT E (19) 04/07/04 13.22
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/07/04 13.3
SMITH ROBERT E (28) 04/07/04 13.21
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.21
SMITH ROBERT E (50) 04/06/04 13.25
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.24
SMITH ROBERT E (30) 04/06/04 13.23
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.22
SMITH ROBERT E (40) 04/06/04 13.19
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/06/04 13.27
SMITH ROBERT E (1) 04/05/04 13.1
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/05/04 13.16
SMITH ROBERT E (9) 04/05/04 13.15
SMITH ROBERT E (12) 04/02/04 13.16
Sinclair Group top Institutional Investors:
EARNEST PARTNERS, LLC
GABELLI ASSET MANAGEMENT CO
MSDW & COMPANY
WESTFIELD CAP MGMT CO, INC.
NEUBERGER BERMAN, LLC
PUTNAM INVESTMENT MGMT, L.L.C.
PERRY CORP
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
BLACKROCK INC
JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
Top Mutual Funds:
JANUS SPECIAL EQUITY FUND
MORGAN STANLEY SPEC VALUE FD
HARBOR SMALL CAP GROWTH FUND
INVESCO LEISURE FUND
MSIF TR SML CAPITAL VALUE PTF
VAN KAMPEN SMALL CAP VALUE
FMI FOCUS FUND
PUTNAM SMALL CAP VALUE FUND
HARBOR SMALL CAP VALUE FUND
JP MORGAN SML CAPITAL EQ FD
Insider Shr. Trd. in Thds Date Price
SMITH ROBERT E (18) 04/07/04 13.2
SMITH ROBERT E (20) 04/07/04 13.24
SMITH ROBERT E (1) 04/07/04 13.26
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/07/04 13.23
SMITH ROBERT E (7) 04/07/04 13.25
SMITH ROBERT E (19) 04/07/04 13.22
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/07/04 13.3
SMITH ROBERT E (28) 04/07/04 13.21
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.21
SMITH ROBERT E (50) 04/06/04 13.25
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.24
SMITH ROBERT E (30) 04/06/04 13.23
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/06/04 13.22
SMITH ROBERT E (40) 04/06/04 13.19
SMITH ROBERT E (3) 04/06/04 13.27
SMITH ROBERT E (1) 04/05/04 13.1
SMITH ROBERT E (10) 04/05/04 13.16
SMITH ROBERT E (9) 04/05/04 13.15
SMITH ROBERT E (12) 04/02/04 13.16
Sinclair Group top Institutional Investors:
EARNEST PARTNERS, LLC
GABELLI ASSET MANAGEMENT CO
MSDW & COMPANY
WESTFIELD CAP MGMT CO, INC.
NEUBERGER BERMAN, LLC
PUTNAM INVESTMENT MGMT, L.L.C.
PERRY CORP
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
BLACKROCK INC
JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
Top Mutual Funds:
JANUS SPECIAL EQUITY FUND
MORGAN STANLEY SPEC VALUE FD
HARBOR SMALL CAP GROWTH FUND
INVESCO LEISURE FUND
MSIF TR SML CAPITAL VALUE PTF
VAN KAMPEN SMALL CAP VALUE
FMI FOCUS FUND
PUTNAM SMALL CAP VALUE FUND
HARBOR SMALL CAP VALUE FUND
JP MORGAN SML CAPITAL EQ FD
Right Wing Sinclair to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Documentary
62 TV stations owned by the conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry. Channels were not given an option as to showing the program. Sinclair is the same broadcasting group that refused to carry ABC's Nightline program naming the soldiers who had honorably fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan because is shone a negative light on the Iraq war.
Email Sinclair Broadcasting group and the local Affiliates and urge them not to broadcast the anti-Kerry attack film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal between now and the Nov. 2 presidential election.
David D. SmithPresident and Chief Executive OfficerE-mail: comments@sbgi.net
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.10706 Beaver Dam RoadHunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone) 410-568-1533 (Main Fax)
Birmingham / Tuscaloosa, AL WTTO - WB Channel 21 http://www.wtto21.com/
Birmingham / Tuscaloosa, AL WABM - UPN Channel 68 http://www.wabm68.com/
Mobile, AL / Pensacola, FLWEAR- ABC Channel 3 http://www.weartv.com/
Mobile, AL / Pensacola, FLWFGX - IND Channel 35 http://www.wfgxtv.com/
Sacramento, CA KOVR - CBS Channel 13 http://www.kovr13.com/
Tallahassee, FL WTWC - NBC Channel 40 http://www.wtwc40.com/
Tallahassee, FL WTXL - ABC Channel 27 http://www.wtxl.com/
Tampa, FL WTTA- WB Channel 38 http://www.wtta38.com/
Cedar Rapids/Waterloo/Dubuque, IA KGAN - CBS Channel 2 http://www.kgan.com/
Des Moines, IA KDSM - FOX Channel 17 http://www.kdsm.com/
Champaign/Springfield/Decatur, IL WICD - NBC Channel 15 http://www.wicd15.com/
Champaign/Springfield/Decatur, IL WICD - NBC Channel 20 http://www.wics.com/
Peoria / Bloomington, IL - FOX Channel 43 http://www.wyzz43.com/
Lexington, KY WDKY - FOX Channel 56 http://www.wdky56.com/
Paducah, KY KBSI - FOX Channel 23 http://www.kbsi23.com/
Paducah, KY WDKA - WB Channel 49 http://www.wdka49.com/
Springfield, MA WGGB - Channel ABC http://www.wggb.com/
Baltimore, MD WBFF - FOX Channel 45 http://www.foxbaltimore.com/
Baltimore, MD WBFF - WB Channel 54 http://www.wbbaltimore.com/
Portland, ME WGME - CBS Channel 13 http://www.wgme.com/
Flint / Saginaw / Bay City, MI WSMH - FOX Channel 66 http://www.wsmh.com/
Minneapolis, MN KMWB - WB Channel 23 http://www.kmwb23.com/
Cape Girardeau, MO KBSI - FOX Channel 23 http://www.kbsi23.com/
Cape Girardeau, MO WDKA - WB Channel 49 http://www.wdka49.com/
Kansas City, MO KSMO - WB Channel 62 http://www.wb62.com/
St Louis, MO KDNL - ABC Channel 30 http://www.abcstlouis.com/
Asheville, NC WLOS - ABC Channel 13 http://www.wlos13.com/
Asheville, NC WBSC - WB Channel 40 http://www.wb40.com/
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/Highpoint, NC WXLV - ABC 45 http://www.abc45.com/
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/Highpoint, NC WUPN - UPN 48 http://www.upn48.com/
Raleigh-Durham, NC WLFL - WB Channel 22 http://www.wb22tv.com/
Raleigh-Durham, NC WRDC - UPN Channel 28 http://www.upn28tv.com/
Las Vegas, NV KVWB - WB Channel 21 http://www.wblasvegas.com/
Las Vegas, NV KFBT - IND Channel 22 http://www.kfbt33.com/
Buffalo, NY WUTV - FOX Channel 29 http://www.wutv.com/
Buffalo, NY WNYO - WB Channel 49 http://www.wb49.net/
Rochester, NY WUHF - FOX Channel http://www.foxrochester.com/
Syracuse, NY WSYT - FOX Channel 68 http://www.wsyt68.com/
Syracuse, NY WNYS - UB Channel 43 http://www.wb43.com/
Cincinnati, OH WSYX- ABC Channel 6 http://www.wsyx6.com/
Cincinnati, OH WTTE - FOX Channel 28 http://www.wtte28.com/
Columbus, OH WSYX - ABC Channel 6 http://www.wsyx6.com/
Columbus, OH WTTE - FOX Channel 28 http://www.wtte28.com/
Dayton, OH WKEF - ABC - Channel 22 http://www.nbc22.com/
Dayton, OH WRGT - FOX Channel 45 http://www.fox45.com/
Oklahoma City, OK KOCB - WB Channel 34 http://www.kocb.com/
Oklahoma City, OK KOKH - FOX Channel 25 http://www.kokh.com/
Pittsburgh, PA WPGH - FOX Channel 53 http://www.wpgh53.com/
Pittsburgh, PA WCWB - WB Channel 22 http://www.wcwb22.com/
Charleston, SC WMMP - UPN Channel 36 http://www.wmmp36.com/
Charleston, SC WTAT - FOX Channel 24 http://www.wtat24.com/
Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson, SC WLOS - ABC Channel 13 http://www.wlos13.com/
Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson, SC WBSC - WB Channel 40 http://www.wb40.com/
Nashville, TN WZTV - FOX Channel 17 http://www.fox17.com/
Nashville, TN WUXP - UPNChannel 30 http://www.upn30.com/
Nashville, TN WNAB - WB Channel 58 http://www.wnab.com/
Tri-Cities, TN WEMT - FOX Channerl 39 http://www.wemt39.com/
San Antonio, TX KABB - FOX Channel 29 http://www.kabb.com/
San Antonio, TX KABB - WB Channel 35 http://www.krrt.com/
Norfolk, VA WTVZ - WB Channel 33 http://www.wtvz33.com/
Richmond, VA WRLH - FOX Channel 35 http://www.fox35.com/
Madison, WI WMSN - FOX Channel 47 http://www.fox47.com/
Milwaukee, WI WCGV - UPN Channel 24 http://www.upn24.net/
Milwaukee, WI WVTV - WB Channel 18 http://www.wb18.net/
Charleston/Huntington, WV WCHS - ABC Channel 8 http://www.wchstv.com/
Charleston/Huntington, WV WVAH - FOX Channle 11 http://www.wvah.com/
Email Sinclair Broadcasting group and the local Affiliates and urge them not to broadcast the anti-Kerry attack film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal between now and the Nov. 2 presidential election.
David D. SmithPresident and Chief Executive OfficerE-mail: comments@sbgi.net
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.10706 Beaver Dam RoadHunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone) 410-568-1533 (Main Fax)
Birmingham / Tuscaloosa, AL WTTO - WB Channel 21 http://www.wtto21.com/
Birmingham / Tuscaloosa, AL WABM - UPN Channel 68 http://www.wabm68.com/
Mobile, AL / Pensacola, FLWEAR- ABC Channel 3 http://www.weartv.com/
Mobile, AL / Pensacola, FLWFGX - IND Channel 35 http://www.wfgxtv.com/
Sacramento, CA KOVR - CBS Channel 13 http://www.kovr13.com/
Tallahassee, FL WTWC - NBC Channel 40 http://www.wtwc40.com/
Tallahassee, FL WTXL - ABC Channel 27 http://www.wtxl.com/
Tampa, FL WTTA- WB Channel 38 http://www.wtta38.com/
Cedar Rapids/Waterloo/Dubuque, IA KGAN - CBS Channel 2 http://www.kgan.com/
Des Moines, IA KDSM - FOX Channel 17 http://www.kdsm.com/
Champaign/Springfield/Decatur, IL WICD - NBC Channel 15 http://www.wicd15.com/
Champaign/Springfield/Decatur, IL WICD - NBC Channel 20 http://www.wics.com/
Peoria / Bloomington, IL - FOX Channel 43 http://www.wyzz43.com/
Lexington, KY WDKY - FOX Channel 56 http://www.wdky56.com/
Paducah, KY KBSI - FOX Channel 23 http://www.kbsi23.com/
Paducah, KY WDKA - WB Channel 49 http://www.wdka49.com/
Springfield, MA WGGB - Channel ABC http://www.wggb.com/
Baltimore, MD WBFF - FOX Channel 45 http://www.foxbaltimore.com/
Baltimore, MD WBFF - WB Channel 54 http://www.wbbaltimore.com/
Portland, ME WGME - CBS Channel 13 http://www.wgme.com/
Flint / Saginaw / Bay City, MI WSMH - FOX Channel 66 http://www.wsmh.com/
Minneapolis, MN KMWB - WB Channel 23 http://www.kmwb23.com/
Cape Girardeau, MO KBSI - FOX Channel 23 http://www.kbsi23.com/
Cape Girardeau, MO WDKA - WB Channel 49 http://www.wdka49.com/
Kansas City, MO KSMO - WB Channel 62 http://www.wb62.com/
St Louis, MO KDNL - ABC Channel 30 http://www.abcstlouis.com/
Asheville, NC WLOS - ABC Channel 13 http://www.wlos13.com/
Asheville, NC WBSC - WB Channel 40 http://www.wb40.com/
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/Highpoint, NC WXLV - ABC 45 http://www.abc45.com/
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/Highpoint, NC WUPN - UPN 48 http://www.upn48.com/
Raleigh-Durham, NC WLFL - WB Channel 22 http://www.wb22tv.com/
Raleigh-Durham, NC WRDC - UPN Channel 28 http://www.upn28tv.com/
Las Vegas, NV KVWB - WB Channel 21 http://www.wblasvegas.com/
Las Vegas, NV KFBT - IND Channel 22 http://www.kfbt33.com/
Buffalo, NY WUTV - FOX Channel 29 http://www.wutv.com/
Buffalo, NY WNYO - WB Channel 49 http://www.wb49.net/
Rochester, NY WUHF - FOX Channel http://www.foxrochester.com/
Syracuse, NY WSYT - FOX Channel 68 http://www.wsyt68.com/
Syracuse, NY WNYS - UB Channel 43 http://www.wb43.com/
Cincinnati, OH WSYX- ABC Channel 6 http://www.wsyx6.com/
Cincinnati, OH WTTE - FOX Channel 28 http://www.wtte28.com/
Columbus, OH WSYX - ABC Channel 6 http://www.wsyx6.com/
Columbus, OH WTTE - FOX Channel 28 http://www.wtte28.com/
Dayton, OH WKEF - ABC - Channel 22 http://www.nbc22.com/
Dayton, OH WRGT - FOX Channel 45 http://www.fox45.com/
Oklahoma City, OK KOCB - WB Channel 34 http://www.kocb.com/
Oklahoma City, OK KOKH - FOX Channel 25 http://www.kokh.com/
Pittsburgh, PA WPGH - FOX Channel 53 http://www.wpgh53.com/
Pittsburgh, PA WCWB - WB Channel 22 http://www.wcwb22.com/
Charleston, SC WMMP - UPN Channel 36 http://www.wmmp36.com/
Charleston, SC WTAT - FOX Channel 24 http://www.wtat24.com/
Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson, SC WLOS - ABC Channel 13 http://www.wlos13.com/
Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson, SC WBSC - WB Channel 40 http://www.wb40.com/
Nashville, TN WZTV - FOX Channel 17 http://www.fox17.com/
Nashville, TN WUXP - UPNChannel 30 http://www.upn30.com/
Nashville, TN WNAB - WB Channel 58 http://www.wnab.com/
Tri-Cities, TN WEMT - FOX Channerl 39 http://www.wemt39.com/
San Antonio, TX KABB - FOX Channel 29 http://www.kabb.com/
San Antonio, TX KABB - WB Channel 35 http://www.krrt.com/
Norfolk, VA WTVZ - WB Channel 33 http://www.wtvz33.com/
Richmond, VA WRLH - FOX Channel 35 http://www.fox35.com/
Madison, WI WMSN - FOX Channel 47 http://www.fox47.com/
Milwaukee, WI WCGV - UPN Channel 24 http://www.upn24.net/
Milwaukee, WI WVTV - WB Channel 18 http://www.wb18.net/
Charleston/Huntington, WV WCHS - ABC Channel 8 http://www.wchstv.com/
Charleston/Huntington, WV WVAH - FOX Channle 11 http://www.wvah.com/
Bush Playing Politics with Soldiers' Lives
The Bush administration has decided to hold off on offensives into Iraqi insurgent strongholds until after the Nov. 2 election. As reported by the Los Angels Times - Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote, Oct. 11th, the Bush administration has admitted that it will delay any pushes into the uncontrolled areas because American deaths could have negative impacts on their re-election hopes. This decision was made even though it has been generally accepted that the longer we wait to pacify these insurgent strongholds, the more casualties will be suffered due to the insurgents having more time to dig in and galvanize the local population.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity."Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said.
For Bush, your vote is more important than the lives of our soldiers.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity."Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said.
For Bush, your vote is more important than the lives of our soldiers.
George Bush Introduces the New WMD Thought Doctrine
George Bush has now redefined the justification to use pre-emptive force to protect America. This, coupled with the fact that he cannot or will not admit to any mistakes and would do everything exactly the same, should scare the hell out of Americans. Now, a country need not have WMDs anymore. They need not be actively trying to get them. For Bush, all a country has to do is think about building WMDs and we are justified to invade. That begs the question then, who is next? Beyond the fact that Iran, North Korea are on the verge of building nukes, how many nations have thought about WMDs? I am sure there are plenty of nations who have thought about trying to get WMDs. Syria, Indonesia, Sudan, etc., I am sure have all thought about the possibility of WMDs. If I was the leader of a smaller nations, I would think about it, too. Using his new justification after Duelfer and every other report has undermined his initial rational, thought is enough for a pre-emptive attack. So, under the Bush doctrine, we should invade them all. And since, according to him, he is infallible, he would rush into war with too little troops and no plan for peace. How many times does he have to screw up before the American people say enough is enough, we need someone with a brain and humility? Not only is Bush "that guy" who refuses to pull over and ask for directions when he is lost, he will just change the destination to fit his mistakes. I could easily see him starting off for a family vacation to Orlando and ending up at the largest ball of yarn in Tulsa, claiming that was his plan the entire time. Too bad there is no On-Star in the oval office.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Quips, Quotes and Lies
BUSH: Each situation is different, Robin. And obviously we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force.
Clinton diplomacy was working. Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction. You didn't give it a chance to work. In fact, you made the inspectors leave while doing there job.
BUSH: You remember the last debate? My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.
Were you not reading the same report as us? They were working. And what weapons was Saddam going to give to the terrorists? His arsenal of spit balls? HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. Additionally, it was not the goal of the UN to remove Saddam. The UN goal was to keep WMDs out of his hands.
BUSH: First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there.
But we would have known if you let the inspectors finish their job. They inspect... Thus the title inspectors... it is a tough concept to grasp, but give it a try.
BUSH: That answer almost made me want to scowl.
Your answers make me want to run screaming into the hills.
BUSH: I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.
On the "internets"? do you even know how to turn a computer on?
BUSH: We don't need mass armies anymore.
Umm... Iraq? Seems like we need a mass army there
BUSH: Listen, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland.
Except protect the ports, airplanes, open borders.
BUSH: I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.
Yes, you would prefer that our seniors die from only being able to afford a third of the medication they need to survive.
BUSH: If they're safe, they're coming. I want to remind you that it wasn't just my administration that made the decision on safety.
Well, I have been hearing of mass Canadian deaths from the American drugs they import from our country... And as for the decision, yes, it has been your decision for the past 4 years.
BUSH: Let me see where to start here. First, the National Journal named Sen. Kennedy [sic] the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.
Where should I start. The National Journal, a conservative publication, is being misrepresented by you. If you look at Kennedy's - sorry - Kerry's record over the past 4 years, he is actually 11th our of 49. Edwards is part of the moderate wing of the Democratic party. Try reading down past the first paragraph Mr. Bush.
BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate
Lets look at your record. You turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit in the history of the world. Your spending is out of control. Hello, kettle...
BUSH: And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it?
Well, how are you going to pay for it? The tooth fairy?
BUSH: I mean, these aren't make-up figures.
Please, please, please learn how to speak English. I'm dyslexic and I am getter at it than you.
BUSH: I've got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million.
By 3 million what? Centimeters? Inches? I know it is not acres. The only way you could do that is by reclassifying what a wetland is so we could loose millions of acres and you could still claim credit for saving them... Oh, wait... that is what you did... sorry, my bad.
BUSH: What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested.
Harvested? Is that the new term for clear cut? kind of like "clear skies" really means clearing the skies of all living creatures?
BUSH: That's why I proposed a hydrogen automobile -- hydrogen-generated automobile.
Is this kind of like Gore inventing the internet?
BUSH: It's one of these deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot I think there's a better way to do it.
No, you sign it so Florida and Louisiana are still states in 50 years. And if there is a better way of doing it, why have you not done ANYTHING!
BUSH: And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the president of the United States.
Not according to your EPA.
BUSH: I own a timber company?
Yes, you did. $86 dollars worth, making you a small business by your own standards.
BUSH: Every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny.
No, actually, the PATRIOT act pretty much gives judges very little discretion as to whether to sign a search warrant. Read, learn, understand...
BUSH: Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell.
If life is so important to you, then why do you get so giddy about executing retarded people?
BUSH: The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.
What? Are you admitting the would would be better off if Kerry was president? I thought you said before it wouldn't be... FLIP-FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER!
Clinton diplomacy was working. Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction. You didn't give it a chance to work. In fact, you made the inspectors leave while doing there job.
BUSH: You remember the last debate? My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.
Were you not reading the same report as us? They were working. And what weapons was Saddam going to give to the terrorists? His arsenal of spit balls? HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. Additionally, it was not the goal of the UN to remove Saddam. The UN goal was to keep WMDs out of his hands.
BUSH: First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there.
But we would have known if you let the inspectors finish their job. They inspect... Thus the title inspectors... it is a tough concept to grasp, but give it a try.
BUSH: That answer almost made me want to scowl.
Your answers make me want to run screaming into the hills.
BUSH: I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.
On the "internets"? do you even know how to turn a computer on?
BUSH: We don't need mass armies anymore.
Umm... Iraq? Seems like we need a mass army there
BUSH: Listen, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland.
Except protect the ports, airplanes, open borders.
BUSH: I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.
Yes, you would prefer that our seniors die from only being able to afford a third of the medication they need to survive.
BUSH: If they're safe, they're coming. I want to remind you that it wasn't just my administration that made the decision on safety.
Well, I have been hearing of mass Canadian deaths from the American drugs they import from our country... And as for the decision, yes, it has been your decision for the past 4 years.
BUSH: Let me see where to start here. First, the National Journal named Sen. Kennedy [sic] the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.
Where should I start. The National Journal, a conservative publication, is being misrepresented by you. If you look at Kennedy's - sorry - Kerry's record over the past 4 years, he is actually 11th our of 49. Edwards is part of the moderate wing of the Democratic party. Try reading down past the first paragraph Mr. Bush.
BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate
Lets look at your record. You turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit in the history of the world. Your spending is out of control. Hello, kettle...
BUSH: And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it?
Well, how are you going to pay for it? The tooth fairy?
BUSH: I mean, these aren't make-up figures.
Please, please, please learn how to speak English. I'm dyslexic and I am getter at it than you.
BUSH: I've got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million.
By 3 million what? Centimeters? Inches? I know it is not acres. The only way you could do that is by reclassifying what a wetland is so we could loose millions of acres and you could still claim credit for saving them... Oh, wait... that is what you did... sorry, my bad.
BUSH: What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested.
Harvested? Is that the new term for clear cut? kind of like "clear skies" really means clearing the skies of all living creatures?
BUSH: That's why I proposed a hydrogen automobile -- hydrogen-generated automobile.
Is this kind of like Gore inventing the internet?
BUSH: It's one of these deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot I think there's a better way to do it.
No, you sign it so Florida and Louisiana are still states in 50 years. And if there is a better way of doing it, why have you not done ANYTHING!
BUSH: And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the president of the United States.
Not according to your EPA.
BUSH: I own a timber company?
Yes, you did. $86 dollars worth, making you a small business by your own standards.
BUSH: Every action being taken against terrorists requires court order, requires scrutiny.
No, actually, the PATRIOT act pretty much gives judges very little discretion as to whether to sign a search warrant. Read, learn, understand...
BUSH: Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell.
If life is so important to you, then why do you get so giddy about executing retarded people?
BUSH: The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.
What? Are you admitting the would would be better off if Kerry was president? I thought you said before it wouldn't be... FLIP-FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER!
Was He Wired? You Make the Call
I really don't think he was, but I would not put past Bush to wear a wire at the presidential debate so aides could give him the answers he would normally lack. The picture from the back side of Bush does show something suspicious.
Decide for yourself at:
www.isbushwired.com
Decide for yourself at:
www.isbushwired.com
Bush Already Trying to Steal the Election
Bush's true colors came out again tonight. When he was asked which supreme court judge's he liked, he declined the question because "I want them all voting for me" in a reference as to how the Supreme Court handed the election to him after a 5-4 vote to overturned the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election. How anyone can be so brazen as to actually pander to the supreme court is beyond me. How someone could have the gall to even say that in public is disgusting. The man is too arrogant to be president. The Supreme Court will not be handing you the election this time around Mr. Bush.
I am also glad to hear that Bush claims he would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would overturn the Dred Scott decision... Bravo Mr. President. Glad to know that you would put a justice on the bench that won't vote to allow Black to be property again. And they said you were not a progressive. I have no idea of who tried to prep Bush on this on this case, but as a Lawyer, I can say that he had no idea what he was talking about. Maybe stick to something a little more simple.
In a related note, Bush will most likely be appointing a new Supreme Court Justice if re-elected. Bush is fond of the most right wing judges. As an example of that, Paul Gregory House was convicted of rape and murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. Now with DNA technology, it has been shown that the semen was not his. Not only that, two witnesses have reported that the victims husband bragged about killing her. Even with this evidence, a 15-judge US Court of Appeals panel voted 8-7 not to reopen the case and permit a new trial. The vote was along party lines with Republican appointees voting to let the death penalty stand and Democratic appointees voting to allow a new trial in light of the new evidence. It appears that Republican appointees don't want innocence to get in the way of putting someone to death.
I am also glad to hear that Bush claims he would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would overturn the Dred Scott decision... Bravo Mr. President. Glad to know that you would put a justice on the bench that won't vote to allow Black to be property again. And they said you were not a progressive. I have no idea of who tried to prep Bush on this on this case, but as a Lawyer, I can say that he had no idea what he was talking about. Maybe stick to something a little more simple.
In a related note, Bush will most likely be appointing a new Supreme Court Justice if re-elected. Bush is fond of the most right wing judges. As an example of that, Paul Gregory House was convicted of rape and murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. Now with DNA technology, it has been shown that the semen was not his. Not only that, two witnesses have reported that the victims husband bragged about killing her. Even with this evidence, a 15-judge US Court of Appeals panel voted 8-7 not to reopen the case and permit a new trial. The vote was along party lines with Republican appointees voting to let the death penalty stand and Democratic appointees voting to allow a new trial in light of the new evidence. It appears that Republican appointees don't want innocence to get in the way of putting someone to death.
Friday, October 08, 2004
The Aftermath of the Iconoclast Kerry Endorsement
Last week, George Bush's home town paper, the Iconoclast, bravely endorsed John Kerry for President. You can read in their own words what impact a little known paper can do and how freedom of speech can be used and abused.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial40.htm
Ann Coulter Molests Children?
While at the book store the other day (yes, I read... does that make me an elitist?) I was in the political section. I did my best to even avoid eye contact with it, but I broke down and read a little bit of Ann Coulter's "Treason." How she hasn't been committed to an institution yet is beyond me... but I digress. I looked at her end notes (note to Ann - foot notes are at the bottom of the page - End notes are at the end of the book - You know what I am talking about, Ann) and was fascinated about how she does her research and comes to conclusions. She seems to love doing google searches and stopping there. Using her techniques, I will show you that fox news lies and Ann Coulter molests children and Rush is anti-Semitic.
I ran the words "Fox News Lies" in google. It returned 1,280,000 hits. "CNN lies" returned 948,000 hits. ABC, CBS and NBC returned 696,000, 702,000, and 421,000 hits respectively. By using Ann's reasoning, Fox News is the least honest news organization. While we know this to be true, I don't think we can prove it by doing a google search the way Ann tries to. When I ran "Ann Coulter molests children," it returned 144 hits. Therefore, Ann must molest little children, right? (shame on you Ann) Now, there is a distinct possibility Ann Coulter eats babies, but I doubt she touches them in Michael Jackson ways. The words "Rush Limbaugh hates Jews" returns 25,000 hits. While people may have their own opinions about Rush's views of Jews, I don't think this is conclusive evidence. And, in the inverse, Ann, if you run a google search and nothing comes up, it is not evidence that it is not true. For example, just because I run the words "George Walker Bush is a narcissistic arrogant pompous ass with a 3rd nipple" doesn't mean he is not one even though it returns no hits (I actually had to add the 3rd nipple part because I did get 271 hits otherwise... go figure). Get a life Ann... or at least a better research team.
I ran the words "Fox News Lies" in google. It returned 1,280,000 hits. "CNN lies" returned 948,000 hits. ABC, CBS and NBC returned 696,000, 702,000, and 421,000 hits respectively. By using Ann's reasoning, Fox News is the least honest news organization. While we know this to be true, I don't think we can prove it by doing a google search the way Ann tries to. When I ran "Ann Coulter molests children," it returned 144 hits. Therefore, Ann must molest little children, right? (shame on you Ann) Now, there is a distinct possibility Ann Coulter eats babies, but I doubt she touches them in Michael Jackson ways. The words "Rush Limbaugh hates Jews" returns 25,000 hits. While people may have their own opinions about Rush's views of Jews, I don't think this is conclusive evidence. And, in the inverse, Ann, if you run a google search and nothing comes up, it is not evidence that it is not true. For example, just because I run the words "George Walker Bush is a narcissistic arrogant pompous ass with a 3rd nipple" doesn't mean he is not one even though it returns no hits (I actually had to add the 3rd nipple part because I did get 271 hits otherwise... go figure). Get a life Ann... or at least a better research team.
Let Nader Run
This is to all of the Democrats out there trying to keep Nader off the ballots... Let him run. Yes, I know that the votes that Nader siphoned off of Gore last time gave the election to Bush. And, I know that Nader has sold out to the people he says he opposes. But, it is anti-democratic to actively trying to keep him off of the ballot. Anyone who still votes for Nader, even though they know it is a vote for Bush, is in my opinion, quite stupid, but it is there vote and they should be able to cast it for whoever they want. If they still vote for Nader knowing what happened last time, then they deserve a president like Bush. That is what democracy is about, Choice. If he legitimately gets on the ballot, let it be and let democracy work.
Bin Laden Behind Bars
Bush keeps on rhetorically asking, "Perhaps Senator Kerry would prefer Saddam were still in power."
I certainly don't like Saddam. I think he was a horrible person. BUT, if I had to choose between Saddam and Osama, I would prefer Osama be behind bars. He was the one who attacked us on 9/11. He was the one experimenting with chemical weapons. He is the one who has sworn to kill as many Americans as possible. We had the opportunity to go after Bin Laden, but Bush went after Saddam instead. The world would definitely be safer if Bin Laden was where Saddam is now.
I certainly don't like Saddam. I think he was a horrible person. BUT, if I had to choose between Saddam and Osama, I would prefer Osama be behind bars. He was the one who attacked us on 9/11. He was the one experimenting with chemical weapons. He is the one who has sworn to kill as many Americans as possible. We had the opportunity to go after Bin Laden, but Bush went after Saddam instead. The world would definitely be safer if Bin Laden was where Saddam is now.
The $87 Billion Republican Giveaway
Ok, lets set the record straight. Bush keeps calling Kerry a flip-flopper for voting for the $87 billion supplemental bill and then against it. This is what happened. The original bill proposed in the Senate would have paid for the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cut for the top 2% of wage earners. This bill, Senator Kerry voted for. But, because the Republicans no longer believe in fiscal responsibility, they voted against it. After this bill was defeated, it was changed so there would be no repeal of the tax cut. The Republicans voted for this version and Kerry voted against it because it was not fiscally responsible. So, while Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, the republicans voted against it before they voted for it. The Bush Administration along with Republican Congress is the first group in history to give tax cuts while at a time of war. When I say 'history,' I don't just mean American History... I mean world history. Kerry should be proud of his protest vote against the Republican irresponsibility.
Voter Fraud Strikes Again in Florida
Brendan Farrington of the Orlando Sentinel reported October 6th that there is continued voter fraud in Florida by Republicans. The state is now investigating 1500 voter registration forms that either appear to be forged or tampered with to register college students as Republicans. According to the article, "County elections supervisor Ion Sancho said it was suspicious enough that the registration forms were all photocopies, but the new voters also were between the ages of 18-24, a group that often registers with no party affiliation. 'When we saw that all of these individuals were registered as Republicans, a buzzer went off,' Sancho said." Apparently "the overwhelming majority of them had not selected the Republican Party as the party they wanted to be registered in." Additionally, there are "reports of bogus addresses, forms coming in with false information and registered voters who are being re-registered without their knowledge." This is not only concerning because of the obvious election fraud taking place, but because students who showed up at the polls on November 2nd would have been turned away due to the conflicting interest. Since the overwhelming majority of the students did not want to register as Republican, this could have negated hundreds of votes for Kerry. As we saw in the last election, every single votes counts. This, along with every other fraudulent effort seen this election is horrible. Every eligible voter who is turned away inappropriately, Democrat or Republican, is a shame on our democracy. Whoever did this is not only un-American, they are also denigrating the efforts of every man and woman who has fought for our right to vote as Americans. I hope whoever it was, gets caught, gets convicted of a felony, and loses their own right to vote since they have tried to steal the right from others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
