NationStates Jolt Archive

ENergy
Executive Order
Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to take additional steps to expedite the increased supply and availability of energy to our Nation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner is essential to the well-being of the American people. In general, it is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy.

Sec. 2. Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects. For energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. The agencies shall take such actions to the extent permitted by law and regulation, and where appropriate.

Sec. 3. Interagency Task Force. There is established an interagency task force (Task Force) to monitor and assist the agencies in their efforts to expedite their review of permits or similar actions, as necessary, to accelerate the completion of energy-related projects, increase energy production and conser--vation, and improve transmission of energy. The Task Force also shall monitor and assist agencies in setting up appropriate mechanisms to coordinate Federal, State, tribal, and local permitting in geographic areas where increased permitting activity is expected. The Task Force shall be composed of representatives from the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Commerce, Transportation, the Interior, Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, General Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic Advisers, Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, and such other representatives as may be determined by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. The Task Force shall be chaired by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and housed at the Department of Energy for administrative purposes.

Sec. 4. Judicial Review. Nothing in this order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumen-talities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 18, 2001.


Executive Order
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal Government's regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government can significantly affect the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Yet there is often too little information regarding the effects that governmental regulatory action can have on energy. In order to provide more useful energy-related information and hence improve the quality of agency decisionmaking, I am requiring that agencies shall prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when undertaking certain agency actions. As described more fully below, such Statements of Energy Effects shall describe the effects of certain regulatory actions on energy supply, distribution, or use.

Sec. 2. Preparation of a Statement of Energy Effects.

(a) To the extent permitted by law, agencies shall prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for those matters identified as significant energy actions.

(b) A Statement of Energy Effects shall consist of a detailed statement by the agency responsible for the significant energy action relating to:

(i) any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal be implemented, and

(ii) reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use.

(c) The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide guidance to the agencies on the implementation of this order and shall consult with other agencies as appropriate in the implementation of this order.

Sec. 3. Submission and Publication of Statements.

(a) Agencies shall submit their Statements of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, whenever they present the related submission under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, or any successor order.

(b) Agencies shall publish their Statements of Energy Effects, or a summary thereof, in each related Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and in any resulting Final Rule.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "Regulation" and "rule" have the same meaning as they do in Executive Order 12866 or any successor order.

(b) "Significant energy action" means any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:

(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and

(ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or

(2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

(c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

Sec. 5. Judicial Review. Nothing in this order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 18, 2001.

The Disabled:

Executive Order
Community-based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities
Fact Sheet


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to place qualified individuals with disabilities in community settings whenever appropriate, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. This order is issued consistent with the following findings and principles:

(a) The United States is committed to community-based alternatives for individuals with disabilities and recognizes that such services advance the best interests of Americans.

(b) The United States seeks to ensure that America's community-based programs effectively foster independence and participation in the community for Americans with disabilities.

(c) Unjustified isolation or segregation of qualified individuals with disabilities through institutionalization is a form of disability-based discrimination prohibited by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq. States must avoid disability-based discrimination unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity provided by the State.

(d) In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (the "Olmstead decision"), the Supreme Court construed Title II of the ADA to require States to place qualified individuals with mental disabilities in community settings, rather than in institutions, whenever treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such placement, and the State can reasonably accommodate the placement, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities.

(e) The Federal Government must assist States and localities to implement swiftly the Olmstead decision, so as to help ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to live close to their families and friends, to live more independently, to engage in productive employment, and to participate in community life.

Sec. 2. Swift Implementation of the Olmstead Decision: Agency Responsibilities. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration shall work cooperatively to ensure that the Olmstead decision is implemented in a timely manner. Specifically, the designated agencies should work with States to help them assess their compliance with the Olmstead decision and the ADA in providing services to qualified individuals with disabilities in community-based settings, as long as such services are appropriate to the needs of those individuals. These agencies should provide technical guidance and work cooperatively with States to achieve the goals of Title II of the ADA, particularly where States have chosen to develop comprehensive, effectively working plans to provide services to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated settings. These agencies should also ensure that existing Federal resources are used in the most effective manner to support the goals of the ADA. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take the lead in coordinating these efforts.

(b) The Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration shall evaluate the policies, programs, statutes, and regulations of their respective agencies to determine whether any should be revised or modified to improve the availability of community-based services for qualified individuals with disabilities. The review shall focus on identifying affected populations, improving the flow of information about supports in the community, and removing barriers that impede opportunities for community placement. The review should ensure the involvement of consumers, advocacy organizations, providers, and relevant agency representatives. Each agency head should report to the President, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with the results of their evaluation within 120 days.

(c) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall fully enforce Title II of the ADA, including investigating and resolving complaints filed on behalf of individuals who allege that they have been the victims of unjustified institutionalization. Whenever possible, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services should work cooperatively with States to resolve these complaints, and should use alternative dispute resolution to bring these complaints to a quick and constructive resolution.

(d) The agency actions directed by this order shall be done consistent with this Administration's budget.

Sec. 3. Judicial Review. Nothing in this order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 18, 2001.

Executive Order on Excellence in Special Education
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The education of all children, regardless of background or disability, while chiefly a State and local responsibility, must always be a national priority. One of the most important goals of my Administration is to support States and local communities in creating and maintaining a system of public education where no child is left behind. Unfortunately, among those at greatest risk of being left behind are children with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a landmark statute that asserts the rights of all children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education. My Administration strongly supports the principles embodied in the IDEA and the goal of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities so that they can meet high academic standards and participate fully in American society. It is imperative that special education operate as an integral part of a system that expects high achievement of all children, rather than as a means of avoiding accountability for children who are more challenging to educate or who have fallen behind.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (the "Commission"). The Commission shall be composed of not more than 19 members to be appointed by the President from the public and private sectors, as well as up to 5 ex officio members from the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The members may include current and former Federal, State, and local government officials, recognized special education experts, special and general education finance experts, education researchers, educational practitioners, parents of children or young adults with disabilities, persons with disabilities, and others with special experience and expertise in the education of children with disabilities. The President shall designate a Chairperson from among the members of the Commission. The Secretary of Education shall select an Executive Director for the Commission.

Sec. 3. Duties and Commission Report. (a) The Commission shall collect information and study issues related to Federal, State, and local special education programs with the goal of recommending policies for improving the educational performance of students with disabilities. In furtherance of its duties, the Commission shall invite experts and members of the public to provide information and guidance.

(b) Not later than April 30, 2002, the Commission shall prepare and submit a report to the President outlining its findings and recommendations. The report shall include, but need not be limited to:

(1) An examination of available research and information on the effectiveness and cost of special education and the appropriate role of the Federal Government in special education programming and funding. The examination shall include an analysis of the factors that have contributed to the growth in costs of special education since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (a predecessor of IDEA);

(2) Recommendations regarding how Federal resources can best be used to improve educational results for students with disabilities;

(3) A recommended special education research agenda;

(4) An analysis of the impact of providing appropriate early intervention in reading instruction on the referral and identification of children for special education;

(5) An analysis of the effect of special education funding on decisions to serve, place, or refer children for special education services and recommendations for alternative funding formulae that might distribute funds to achieve better results and eliminate any current incentives that undermine the goals of ensuring that children with disabilities receive a high-quality education;

(6) An analysis of, and recommendations regarding, how the Federal Government can help States and local education agencies provide a high-quality education to students with disabilities, including the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel and the inclusion of children with disabilities in performance and accountability systems;

(7) An analysis of the impact of Federal and State statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements on the cost and effectiveness of special education services, and how these requirements support or hinder the educational achievement of students with disabilities;

(8) An assessment of how differences in local educational agency size, location, demographics, and wealth, and in State law and practice affect which children are referred to special education, and the cost of special education; and

(9) A review of the experiences of State and local governments in financing special education, and an analysis of whether changes to the Federal "supplement not supplant" and "maintenance of effort" requirements are appropriate.

Sec. 4. Administration, Compensation, and Termination.

(a) The Department of Education shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide administrative support and funding for the Commission. In addition, appropriate Federal agencies may designate staff to assist with the work of the Commission. To the extent permitted by law, Federal Government employees may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement to the Federal agency.

(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation but, while engaged in the work of the Commis-sion, members appointed from among private citizens of the United States shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the extent funds are available for such purposes.

(c) The functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are applicable to the Commission, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Department of Education in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(d) The Chairperson may from time to time prescribe such rules, procedures, and policies relating to the activities of the Commission as are not inconsistent with law or with the provisions of this order.

(e) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its final report, unless extended by the President.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 2, 2001.

President Orders Ready Reserves of Armed Forces to Active Duty
Executive Order
Ordering the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty And
Delegating Certain Authorities to the Secretary of Defense And
the Secretary of Transportation

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in furtherance of the proclamation of September 14, 2001, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, which declared a national emergency by reason of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, the authority under title 10, United States Code, to order any unit, and any member of the Ready Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense. The term "Secretary concerned" is defined in section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code, to mean the Secretary of the Army with respect to the Army; the Secretary of the Navy with respect to the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to the Air Force; and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.

Sec. 2. To allow for the orderly administration of personnel within the armed forces, the following authorities vested in the President are hereby invoked to the full extent provided by the terms thereof: section 527 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend the operation of sections 523, 525, and 526 of that title, regarding officer and warrant officer strength and distribution; and sections 123, 123a, and 12006 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, involuntary retirement, and separation of commissioned officers; end strength limitations; and Reserve component officer strength limitations.

Sec. 3. To allow for the orderly administration of personnel within the armed forces, the authorities vested in the President by sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code, relating to the authority to order to active duty certain officers and enlisted members of the Coast Guard and to detain enlisted members, are invoked to the full extent provided by the terms thereof.

Sec. 4. The Secretary of Defense is hereby designated and empowered, without the approval, ratification, or other action by the President, to exercise the authority vested in the President by sections 123, 123a, 527, and 12006 of title 10, United States Code, as invoked by sections 2 and 3 of this order.

Sec. 5. The Secretary of Transportation is hereby designated and empowered, without the approval, ratification, or other action by the President, to exercise the authority vested in sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code, when the Coast Guard is not serving as part of the Navy, as invoked by section 2 of this order, to recall any regular officer or enlisted member on the retired list to active duty and to detain any enlisted member beyond the term of his or her enlistment.

Sec. 6. The authority delegated by this order to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation may be redelegated and further subdelegated to civilian subordinates who are appointed to their offices by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Sec. 7. Based upon my determination under 10 U.S.C. 2201(c) that it is necessary to increase (subject to limits imposed by law) the number of members of the armed forces on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in appropriation Acts for the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense may provide for the cost of such additional members as an excepted expense under section 11(a) of title 41, United States Code.

Sec. 8. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Sec. 9. This order is effective immediately and shall be promptly transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 14, 2001.

(remember Kerry claims that Bush did nothing during the first month after 911.)

tl;dr

Afghanistan Combat Zone Executive Order
Executive Order Designation of Afghanistan and the Airspace Above as a Combat Zone

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 112), I designate, for purposes of that section, Afghanistan, including the airspace above, as an area in which Armed Forces of the United States are and have been engaged in combat.

For purposes of this order, I designate September 19, 2001, as the date of the commencement of combatant activities in such zone.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 12, 2001.

(8 days after 911, Bush had US forces in Afghan. kicking Taliban ass. So much for the dems charge that Bush did nothing.)

So did anybody catch that little speech fumble Bush did?

---
President Bush told a roomful of top Pentagon brass on Thursday that his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said.
---

Pretty funny! Of course, those anti-Bush people can twist around this statement and say it wasn't a slip, blah blah.

http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0700&id=2004080514150002569532

Um....Whittier? September 19? Written in December? Hrmm...

Two months Whittier...it took two months. We gave the man who killed thousands of people a 2 month head start. Perhaps had he listened to his advisors about it not being Iraq we might have done the right thing faster.

# The President today announced approximately $188 million in grants to help Americans in need with additional funding of $43 million for the Compassion Capital Fund, which supports the work of over 1,900 local groups and faith-based organizations that assist people in need; $45.5 million for mentoring children of prisoners to care for children at risk and in need of a responsible adult in their lives; and almost $100 million for the Access to Recovery program to help Americans conquer addiction using substance abuse treatment vouchers to access the most effective programs.
# The President's FY 2005 budget proposal requests an additional $100 million for the Compassion Capital Fund; an additional $50 million for mentoring children of prisoners; and an additional $200 million for Access to Recovery.

Um....Whittier? September 19? Written in December? Hrmm...

Two months Whittier...it took two months. We gave the man who killed thousands of people a 2 month head start. Perhaps had he listened to his advisors about it not being Iraq we might have done the right thing faster.
The movement of special ops was top secret at the time, hence the reason no executive order was issued. Otherwise, those who supported Bin Laden could have tried to gain access to the info through the freedom of info act.
We were at war and it was utmost important that the actions our people were taking in afghan. remain completely top secret until the right time.

Um....Whittier? September 19? Written in December? Hrmm...

Two months Whittier...it took two months. We gave the man who killed thousands of people a 2 month head start. Perhaps had he listened to his advisors about it not being Iraq we might have done the right thing faster.
I might add, it took two months for the executive order, not the deployment of US troops.

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

ENergy
Executive Order
Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects

snip
GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 18, 2001.


Executive Order
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use


GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 18, 2001.

That's all real nice. Now where is the part where it says he can fire anyone who is giving him a report he doesn't like which might keep him from further raping the environment? Because that's the way the administration actually runs such things.

America was never a member of nor a supporter of the world court.

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

Lots of unsubstiantiated accusations with no basis in reality.

You just like him because he is a conservative "christian" who has basically done everything on that list and should be impeached. He just needs a little moustache. "Mein fuehrer!"

Bush haters don't ever find proof or evidence of their claims, they just drop bombs, personally attack and then run away like frightened kitty cats. For shame.

Twisting and spinning. It's the new liberal lefty game in town.

Bills signed into law by Bush.

1. S.23 : A bill to provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.

16. H.R.273 : To provide for the eradication and control of nutria in Maryland and Louisiana.

21. S.151 : An Act to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, and for other purposes.

22. S.162 : A bill to provide for the use of distribution of certain funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and for other purposes.

23. H.R.289 : To expand the boundaries of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge.

25. H.R.1298 : To provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes.

26. H.R.2185 : To extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.

40. H.R.2350 : To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.

42. H.R.519 : To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River Watershed,

60. S.709 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

63. H.R.733 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the McLoughlin House in Oregon City, Oregon, for inclusion in Fort Vancouver Historic Site, and for other purposes.

74. H.R.2854 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

89. H.R.3146 : To extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, and certain tax and trade programs,

93. S.111 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park, and for other purposes.

94. S.233 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

105. S.3 : A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

131. H.R.274 : To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property in Cecil County, Maryland, known as Garrett Island for inclusion in the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.


This is just a sampling. Notice that in couple of these, Bush expanded the boundaries of national parks.

Lots of unsubstiantiated accusations with no basis in reality.

what planet are you on?

no basis in reality........if you lost your job under bush.....no basis in reality.....

here's a good one....why george w. bush sux.....

The (Anti) Education Governor
79% of Texans who are 25 or older have a high school diploma or equivalency certificate and 24 % have bachelor's degrees--both lower than the national average, according to a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. In the US, 84% of US adults 25 or older have completed high school and 26% have at least a four-year college degree. Completion rates are particularly low amongst Hispanics, with 57% nationwide and 54% in Texas finishing high school.

References:
Austin American-Statesman 19 Dec. 2000

Bush Blunders Toward Future Budget Meltdown
by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas — The National Laboratory for Bad Government has just finished the most interesting experiment, with, as usual, sharp lessons for the rest of the nation. This one is called, "What Can You Do When the Cupboard Is Bare?" The answer is: absolutely nothing.
The 77th session of the Texas Legislature was not, ah, productive. Because, of course, there was no money. The reason there was no money is because George W. Bush pushed two major tax cuts through the 75th and 76th sessions.
But at least, you may think, the people of Texas are enjoying having a little more change in their pockets. Well, no. You see, as soon as the state cut taxes, the school districts raised theirs. Most citizens of this state never a saw a nickel from the Bush tax cuts, and even if they do live someplace where the school districts, starved for money, didn't add new taxes, what we got comes to a Big Mac a month. Meanwhile, the Legislature spent all session scrabbling around to fund health insurance for teachers.
When the cupboard is bare, government becomes an isotonic exercise: Unmet needs push against the equal and opposite force of no money. Unfortunately, the only muscle that develops from this exercise is in the frustration department.
Watching this exercise in futility in Austin take place while the Congress of the United States passed another Bush tax cut naturally led me to a spasm of Texas Proud. Our Ledge may have passed a couple of dumb tax cuts to help Bush get to the White House, but at least we never did anything THAT dumb. Pass a $1.35 trillion tax cut that takes effect 10 years out? In happy synchronicity (that's like N'Sync, kids), 10 years from now is precisely when the first of the baby boom generation will begin to retire, presenting us with a Social Security problem of major dimensions.
You may assume that's SO dumb that Bush's federal tax cut will never actually take place: Congress will see what's happening and cut it off before it throws the country back into the deficit/high interest cycle. But there's a law of political physics that applies here: Politicians love to cut taxes; they hate to raise taxes.
Raising taxes, or even canceling a promised tax cut, makes pols unpopular. They get attacked by their opponents and voted out of office for doing that.
You may recall the last time the feds raised taxes was 1993, when the Democrats gutted up and raised them on the richest people in the country by exactly one vote. Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk went ballistic over "the biggest tax increase in history," even though it affected no one we know. (All tax increases and cuts are "the biggest in history" because the size of the economy keeps growing.) In 1994, the Republicans took over Congress. That's cause and effect there.
Now Bush breezes in and starts by sending everybody in the country a check for "up to" $300 (that's being done at the insistence of the Democrats, who keep trying to get something for everyone, rather than for large political donors only). This is the Clinton Bonus, what we get for having Clinton and Robert Rubin in for eight years. What do you think the next president's going to face?
Apparently, we're dumb enough to fall for this once every 20 years. Ronald Reagan gave us a nice, shiny new tax cut in '81, and it only cost us $2 trillion in debt.
Back at Bad Government Central, the session was one long hangover from the Bush years. If it didn't cost any money — like the hate crimes bill and keeping kids out of the back of pick-ups — it got done. However, they could not bring themselves to stop executing the mentally retarded. Even with a record-large budget of $114 billion, the state still can't afford the level of services that would get us up to average in anything.
So here's the news bulletin from our parts: Living with the aftermath of Bush is a bad hangover. Some people are smart enough to see it coming. When Ronald Reagan was pushing tax cuts 20 years ago, a Republican voted against him, predicting the cuts would lead to massive deficits. The guy's name was Jim Jeffords.


All but forgotten in the barrage of recent events ranging from the violence in Palestine to the exploits of President Bible-Baseball-Barbecue in Europe is the sinking of a Japanese fishing boat by the submarine USS Greenville on February 9. More than a week after the incident, word leaked out that a number of Republican campaign contributors had distracted the sailor responsible for keeping track of surface vessels in the area. At this revelation some commentators suggested it might be time to change the linens in the Lincoln bedroom
Recounts could have given Gore the edge
Broward, Palm Beach checked
BY SHARI RUDAVSKY AND BETH REINHARD
breinhard@herald.com
Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards, although besieged by Republican claims that they used lax standards to award votes to Al Gore, could have credited hundreds more ballots to the Democrat if they had counted every dimple, pinprick and hanging chad as a vote, a review of ballots in both counties shows.
In Broward, where the official hand recount added 567 votes to Gore's county lead over Bush, a Herald-sponsored ballot review found that Gore's margin could have been 1,475, if every mark had been counted as a valid vote. In Palm Beach, where the official hand recount added a net gain of 174 votes to Gore's tally, the Herald-sponsored review found a potential Gore net gain of 1,081.
``It's hard to believe that the canvassing boards could have counted even more votes,'' said Broward Republican Party Chairman George LeMieux. ``It was our contention all along that the canvassing board was being extremely loose in their standards.''
The review also revealed that the canvassing boards in both counties had difficulty maintaining uniform standards of judging ballots throughout a process that involved scores of people, hundreds of thousands of ballots, and intense deadline pressure.
Among the ballots examined in Broward and Palm Beach by The Herald and auditors from BDO Seidman, LLP, were hundreds of dimpled ballots credited to no candidate that were virtually identical to scores of dimpled ballots awarded to Bush or Gore.
Canvassing board members said they did the best they could to discern voter intent fairly.
``We didn't make the Democrats happy, we didn't make the Republicans happy, so I think we did something right,'' said Carol Roberts, a Democratic county commissioner who served on the Palm Beach canvassing board.
Suzanne Gunzburger, a Democratic county commissioner on the Broward board who was accused of favoring Gore, said, ``We represented the will of the voter to the best of our ability. I feel comfortable with the job we did.''
The review, sponsored by The Herald, its parent company Knight Ridder and USA Today, examined 16,669 ballots in the two counties as part of a statewide review to determine the possible outcome of a Florida Supreme Court order that undervote ballots throughout the state be counted, a ruling later blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Florida court's order exempted Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia and 139 precincts of Miami-Dade, where canvassing boards had already reviewed ballots. The results of those counties were not included when The Herald computed that the Florida court's order probably would have resulted in Bush still being declared the winner.
But viewing the Palm Beach and Broward ballots, while not illuminating the potential outcome of the state court order, did provide an opportunity to assess the actions of the canvassing boards in their pressured manual counting of all ballots. Some conclusions:
• Had the Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards used the loosest standard in judging ballots and finished the recount by the court-set deadline -- which Palm Beach did not meet -- Gore almost certainly would have won. He might have gained 2,022 votes in the two counties when Bush's state lead was only 930.
And that tally may be conservative because it excludes the cleanly punched ballots in Broward, 252 Bush votes and 786 Gore votes. Broward election officials say they cannot be certain that cleanly punched ballots weren't also read during the machine count.
U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Pembroke Pines, a constant presence at the Broward recount, argued that every ballot mark was made deliberately by a voter indicating a candidate. All impressions should have counted, catapulting Gore over the top.
``The reality is that the canvassing board did not use a liberal standard and did not use the correct standard,'' Deustch said. ``Had they used the correct standard, Al Gore would be president.''
• Both political parties adopted strategies in Palm Beach and Broward that turned out to favor their candidates.
Republicans correctly anticipated that a lenient standard would benefit Gore in those two counties and fought strenuously against it. Democrats fought unsuccessfully for including more ballots as valid votes.
• Consistency was hard to come by.
Piles of dimpled ballots never made it to the canvassing boards for scrutiny because elections workers and observers agreed among themselves that they contained no valid votes. The canvassing boards only scrutinized ballots when teams of two election workers and two representatives of the parties did not agree.
``If we missed that many, I'll have to go kill some people,'' said Dennis Newman, a Boston attorney who represented the Democratic Party in Palm Beach. ``That depresses me. Our instructions were very clear. When in doubt, question it or challenge it if you see anything.''
Broward and Palm Beach kicked off their countywide manual recounts with basically the same benchmark for judging a ballot: the bit of paper the voter expels from the punch-card ballot, the chad, had to be detached by at least two corners to count as a vote.
But as the recount battle went to court again and again, and the canvassing board members saw dimpled ballot after dimpled ballot, the basis for judging a vote evolved.
In both counties, board members started looking at the whole ballot rather than just the presidential chad in an effort to determine voter intent.
In Palm Beach, the canvassing board counted dimples as votes if the rest of the ballot bore similar marks instead of clean punches.
``Generally there had to be some pattern that this was how the person voted,'' said Judge Charles Burton, the chairman of the Palm Beach board. ``Out of 22 votes if you just had two little dings, we wouldn't necessarily count that.''
Broward canvassing board members Robert W. Lee and Gunzburger tended to view a dimple as a vote if there were other marks on the ballot for candidates of the same party.
Lee, a Democrat and county court judge, even made a list showing which punch-card numbers corresponded to Democrats and which ones corresponded to Republicans. A quick glance at the list and the ballot would show whether the voter appeared to choose a straight ticket.
``There had to be a pattern of two or three dimples in the Democratic field for me to feel comfortable to count a dimple for Gore,'' Lee said. ``That's the way I interpreted the law.''
Lee's rationale: Many people vote along party lines.
Republicans and some election law experts strongly objected to that standard. Daniel Lowenstein, a UCLA law professor and an expert on elections law, called the voting pattern standard ``profoundly wrong.''
``If you're going to count marks like that, you're surely going to count some significant number of votes that were not intended,'' he said.
If people voted straight-party tickets then Democratic congressional candidate Elaine Bloom should have defeated Republican U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw (she didn't), and Republican Property Appraiser William Markham would have lost (he didn't).
Gunzburger conceded that some voters cross party lines but said, ``We had to come up with a standard, and this is the standard we chose.''
Maintaining even an arguably flawed standard, however, proved impossible.
The Herald compared similarly dimpled ballots to see if the pattern held up. While many dimpled ballots that were counted as votes did show a pattern of other dimples, others assigned to candidates did not.
In the week and a half of recounting, boards often worked 14-hour-plus days, tediously inspecting ballots. In Broward, the board did not even break for Thanksgiving. The Palm Beach canvassing board worked non-stop before the recount deadline from 8 a.m. Saturday to 7 p.m. Sunday.
All of this came under intense media scrutiny. Reporters and television cameras from all over the world hovered just outside the glass-paned rooms where the canvassing boards toiled.
The late hours, life-in-a fishbowl atmosphere, and overall enormity of the task ahead took a toll on board members, despite their valiant efforts.
Palm Beach had a written policy on recounts, which called for the two-corner standard and left little opportunity for partisan objections. But Democratic and Republican activists whittled away at the canvassing board's resolve.
``We blew every policy and procedure with all of that because of the demands placed upon us,'' said Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore. ``Looking back, we were trying to please everybody, we probably should have said, `This is the way it is.' ''
Adding pressure on boards was the inherent difficulty of assessing punch cards. A chad is no bigger than a freckle. A dimple to one person can be a shadow to another.
``It's like reading tea leaves. Everybody sees something different,'' said William Scherer, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who represented the Republican Party in Broward's recount.
Even canvassing board members acknowledge they could not be 100 percent consistent over the long days.
``I'm sure there's a few in there now that if I went back and looked, I'd say these are votes, and if I went through the votes, I'd say some are not votes,'' Burton said.
The order in which ballots came before the canvassing board was another variable. If the board saw a dimpled ballot and called it for Gore, they might call the next dimpled ballot for Bush. But if a similar ballot came three hours later, it might be discarded.
``At 10 a.m. a person might be a little more conservative, and by 10 p.m they may be a little more liberal,'' said LeMieux of the Broward GOP.
Multiply the boards' inconsistency times 60 -- roughly the number of election workers and partisan observers in each county who reviewed the ballots first. If they agreed, the canvassing board never saw the ballot. A ballot ruled as bearing no valid vote and not reviewed by the canvassing board had no chance to count.
Ideally, people looking at ballots would get the same training and follow it to the letter, minimizing discrepancies.
But different teams behaved differently, noted Jeff Darter, informations technology manager for the Palm Beach elections office. ``There was a huge variation in their intensity, in observing or dissenting.''
Democrats in Palm Beach received clear instructions: insist that any ballot with a mark near Gore be canvassed.
As the recount wore on, however, spirits and efforts flagged. ``There were less and less challenges. People were tired, too, so unless it was something glaring, they weren't challenged,'' said Kartik Krishnaiyer, assistant to the chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party.
Krishnaiyer admits he failed to forward some ballots for canvassing in an effort to deflect GOP accusations that Democrats wanted to manufacture votes for Gore.
``There were a couple of times when I thought that I'd better just let that one go because it's going to be a hard sell,'' he said. ``Still the voter intent was clearly there.''
But others involved in the recount retort that ballot marks don't necessarily reflect voters' choices.
``If you just count a ding as a vote, you're no better off than a machine,'' said Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Chairman Burton, a Democrat. ``If you're just counting impressions, then you're really not interpreting the intent of the voter.''
While the quarrel over standards for manual recounts continues, there's one point where there is little debate. Said Brigham McCown, a lawyer who represented the Republican Party in Palm Beach: ``I think everyone's in agreement it did not work as advertised.''
[b]Herald staff writer Geoff Dougherty contributed to this report
Bush picked up 176 votes that lacked postmarks

Gore would have gained votes in Lake County
By David Damron, Ramsey Campbell and Roger Roy
of the Sentinel Staff
Posted December 19, 2000 8:31 AM EST


TAVARES -- An inspection of more than 6,000 discarded presidential ballots in Lake County on Monday revealed that Vice President Al Gore lost a net 130 votes that were clearly his even in a conservative, GOP bastion that president-elect George W. Bush dominated as a whole.

The tally of uncounted ballots by the Orlando Sentinel was the first outside review to be completed in any Florida county since the U.S. Supreme Court halted a statewide recount on Dec. 9. At that point Bush's ever-fluctuating lead over Gore was just 154 votes -- and the margin might have been shaved to a mere two dozen had the Lake ballots been counted. Similar ballots were counted elsewhere.

The review found 376 discarded ballots in Lake that were clearly intended as votes for Gore: In each case, an oval next to his name was filled in with a pencil and the voter mistakenly filled in another oval next to a spot reserved for write-in candidates, writing in Gore's name or running mate Joe Lieberman's there as well. Another 246 such ballots showing clear votes for Bush and running mate Dick Cheney were thrown out. Had all such ballots been counted, the result would have been a net gain of 130 votes for Gore.

Bush spokesman Tucker Eskew said the Sentinel was engaged in "mischief making" by treating "illegal votes" as legal votes. He argued that a 7-2 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed such tallies should not count, and the Sentinel would only be irresponsibly "inflaming public passions" by playing the numbers up as certain or clear.

"To publish illegal votes as legal votes would be to mislead the readers and the public," Eskew said. "These are illegal votes, and your paper is publishing them as legal votes."

The findings in Lake are just one piece in a statewide mosaic to be assembled in coming weeks and months as outsiders look at ballots that didn't count on Nov. 7. Newspapers including the Sentinel are banding together to inspect many of the approximately 180,000 ballots cast statewide but not tallied in the presidential race either because no vote could be detected by a machine or because voters marked more than one choice for president. A review likely to be much more tedious than the one in Lake began Monday in Broward County, where a study of 6,600 punch-card ballots began.

But the Lake numbers are significant even in isolation. Republicans had argued all along that Gore's push for recounts in heavily Democratic counties like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Broward was selective and unfair because it would have skewed results in his favor. But the Sentinel review shows how he might have recovered votes even in a county where Bush beat him by 15 percentage points.

And ballots exactly like those rejected in Lake -- and now called "illegal" by Eskew -- were counted by canvassing boards in places such as Orange and Seminole counties and are now part of the certified totals.

Lake reported 3,114 so-called "overvotes" in its certified presidential results, and county officials had been preparing to evaluate those ballots as part of the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 8. By the time the U.S. Supreme Court halted that effort the next afternoon, Lake officials had already sifted through 91,989 ballots cast countywide to segregate the presidential overvotes as well as about 3,000 overvoted ballots rejected by tabulation machines in other races.

It was this pool of more than 6,000 ballots examined by three Sentinel reporters under a Florida public-records law request. Reporters were not allowed to touch ballots, but the newspaper paid for three election workers to spend the day holding them up for inspection. The process was observed by representatives of both parties.

The count went quickly because voter intent was easily detectable. Lake ballots are marked with pencils and tabulated with optical-scanning devices. There are no issues of "dangling chads" or "pregnant chads" to contend with, as there are in counties that use punch-card voting systems.

If Florida's recounts had continued, the Lake County ballots examined by the Sentinel could have swung the presidential election, said Bob Poe, chairman of the state Democratic Party. When the recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, "we were within 113 or 114 votes," Poe said, referring to claims that Gore was gaining more ground even that Saturday before the recount was halted. "This would have put Gore over the top."

Bush's official margin of victory was 537 votes, the number certified by Secretary of State Katherine Harris two weeks before the Florida Supreme Court's last recount order.

GOP partisans say they don't put much stock in any new numbers coming out of Florida now. Bush spokesman Eskew said GOP observers watching the Lake review on Monday dispute the accuracy of the Sentinel's inspection. They claimed that as many as 29 votes counted as write-ins for Gore by the Sentinel were actually written as "Gore and Cheney" or Gore and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot.

But such ballots were specifically excluded in the Sentinel's methodology. The review also found -- but did not count -- hundreds more questionable ballots that machines tossed aside or local election officials deemed invalid. Many of these arguably could have been judged as intended for a single candidate.

Some of those were ballots in which the voter penciled in the oval next to the name of more than one candidate, but then tried to erase one. On some ballots, the voter nearly rubbed through the paper trying to erase a vote.

Others voted for more than one candidate, sometimes a half-dozen, then made X's through most of the names. In many cases, it wasn't clear whether they meant to select the candidates who were X'ed out, or those who weren't. On other double-voted ballots, the voters' intention was spelled out, however awkwardly: Some made notations next to one of the votes, including "no," "wrong one," "mistake" and "not."

These hundreds of more marginal ballots -- which the Sentinel did not include in its tally -- also fell heavily in Gore's favor.

Lake also reported 245 "undervote" ballots, in which counting machines could discern no votes. Only 50 of those undervotes were separated by election officials before the federal high court stepped in. An examination of those ballots by the Sentinel found only a dozen that could be counted. Of those, Bush and Gore had six each. But those were not included in the newspaper's tally.

On some, voters had used an ink pen rather than a pencil, and the machines were apparently unable to detect their vote. Others circled the candidate's name or put an X or check mark next to a name or in one case the party designation.

But on most undervote ballots, there were simply no signs of a vote for a presidential candidate. The Lake overvote totals put Republicans in an odd spot. It's one they may often find themselves in during the next few weeks.

But regardless of what the overvotes show, Lake's GOP Party Chairman Dan Semenza said, "they don't count." "You newspaper people are just trying to stir things up."

Elections experts say Democrats are more likely to be undereducated, older, less affluent, or first-time voters -- all groups more prone to muddle a ballot. So Poe said he wasn't surprised that most of the flawed ballots were from Democratic voters, even though Lake is predominantly Republican.

"My people are economically disadvantaged; some people don't read very well," Poe said. Many may be immigrants who don't read or speak perfect English, he said.

The reason these votes weren't counted Nov. 7 is somewhat confusing. On election night, Lake's canvassing board decided in a 2-1 vote not to count ballots that included an unqualified write-in candidate. Bush and Gore were not legal write-ins, they decided.

They made the same decision in the congressional races on the ballot and wanted to be consistent, canvassing-board member and County Judge Donna Miller said. But Catherine Hanson, a Lake canvassing-board member and county commissioner, said Monday that if she could do it all again, in a race this close she would have looked at and counted clear votes that the machines skipped over.

"We were trying to do our best. It was consistent with what we had done in the past," Hanson, a Republican, said Monday. "I wouldn't say it was a mistake, but we would have done it differently if we know what we do now."
Copyright © 2000, Orlando Sentinel



Open Letter to a Freeper, by Michael Rectenwald
(to a Republican who said our site must be some kind of joke)

If you think our site is a joke, then here's the punch-line: we don't "get over" a coup. Sorry, but it is YOU who are in dire need of information and help. You are either brainwashed by the media, or in a serious state of denial, or both. Your "president" is a complete fraud and probably a coconspirator in the largest voting scandal in US history. At least his brother is, that is for sure.
But, in case you've missed the real news, take a look at the following. For starters, take the REAL vote count, the one that the Herald itself announced both within the erroneously headed story you refer to, and the very next day. The Herald's accounting firm's OWN TOTAL count gave Gore the win. I wrote Mr. Merzer, the author of the article you allude to, and even HE admits that. If you don't believe me, you can write to him yourself. Ask him who won the total Herald recount, period, not who would have won if every factor had been construed in Bush's favor leaving out at least two key counties! Here's his e-mail address:MMerzer@herald.com. His headline was based on a contrived and partial view of the matter, a "what if the FL Supreme Court's count went ahead as mandated, then. . ." The problem is, Merzer left out several counties, assuming they would not have been recounted and assuming a "standard" that couldn't have been assumed. In any case, the REPUBLICAN-desired standard, even given Merzer's contrived scenario, gave Gore the win!!!
You can read the subsequent Herald stories and the others that explain the completely misleading Herald headline, from the link below. If you believe, in all your ignorance, that Bush won the Herald recount, go to: http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html. Start with the first story ("Recounts Could Have Given Gore the Edge, Broward, Palm Beach Checked"), which appeared, rather disingenuously, a day after the false headlined story, and which tallies the Herald's own recount TOTAL!!! Not all of the counties had been included in Merzer's "Bush would have won" scenario (likewise the subtitle of the next day's article: "Broward, Palm Beach checked"), nor did he know what the standard would have been.
After several exchanges, Merzer could not answer the following question I posed to him:
1) My first point is this: why didn't you first publish a story on YOUR total findings, and frame all other scenarios within a total picture of YOUR "complete" recount? We all want to know who REALLY won, not who WOULD have won based on the legal contortions that the count/courts/lawyers and others went through. Your story basically says, "like the other totals before it, this one, too, is incomplete: Bush wins!" That is unsatisfactory. It is more of the same, not the story. I know that this may have become a novel idea to you by now, but what we're looking for is the complete picture, not the picture as distorted by the courts and the incomplete counts of counties/canvassing boards/judges/media. "The whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Not a sophisticated concept, but a useful one nonetheless.
Meanwhile, undervotes are only a SMALL part of the story!
Have you not heard of the voter purge that cost AT LEAST 20,000 people their votes, the majority of whom were African Americans? Of course not. You're apparently not aware of the DBT/Choicepoint voter purge that the State of Florida used, knowing full well that thousands of Democratic voters would be illegally disqualified. Go to: [link=http://www.legitgov.org/linksPcommentary.html#Palast] and read the articles written on it.
Are you not aware that in total, over 200,000 people, the majority of whom were African Americans, and most all of whom were Democrats, lost their votes in Florida, due to the combined causes of the Purge, poor equipment, confusing and illegal ballots and a host of other civil and voting rights violations? Go to: [link=http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=lantigua.]
Are you aware that that the Supreme Court acted illegally in stopping the vote-counts in the election and deciding on the election in the end; have you no idea that at least 2 of them had serious conflicts of interest in the case, such conflicts as would have disqualified any petty court judge, let alone the Supreme Court judge in a case of enormous consequences. Of course, you must have read about Scalia's two sons who worked for Bush's law firm, and Thomas's wife, who was on Bush's transition team? Again, these stories are linked to our site: http://www.legitgov.org/linksPscotus.html. But firstly, even intervening in the conflict was unconstitutional. The conservative and partisan majority's twisted and distorted "logic" was so pathetic and contradictory to their own usual "states' rights" tradition, and so without merit, that even they said that the decision could not be used as precedent. That in itself is unprecedented, and a sure sign that their decision was pure bullshit!
Further, did you not know that the call of the state of Florida for Bush, after the reversal of the call that was based on SOUND statistical sampling the kind of which is wrong once in 10,000 times...did you not know that the fool who called the election for Bush was none other than John Ellis, Bush's OWN COUSIN, who works for Fox News!?!
Add all these factors up, and include the vote-counting intimidation by paid operatives, and many other factors, and you have a bona fide coup d'etat, the likes of which Bush's daddy orchestrated in foreign lands as the CIA director.
Do you not see the connection between this arbitrary and antidemocratic seizure of power and the antidemocratic and nation- and world-violating policies being enacted by the Bush administration today? OF COURSE YOU KNOW THIS, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!!!!! But you are in a state of DENIAL. Freud called this repression of traumatic events. Seek help. But first, go to http://www.legitgov.org/Brecord.htm for the complete national record of Bush atrocities.
For these stories and a whole lot more, check out our website. We have it all there: http://www.legitgov.org. (We've tried to be the complete center for the coup, the occupation, and the resistance to the occupation).
You, sir, are in the dark. Get a load of this: your man is a thief and a crook and a once-AWOL idiot. He is inane and retarded, but mostly a menace to the planet, not unlike his grandfather who bankrolled the Nazis, as even the Boston Globe made mention of JUST TODAY.
Everything about this residency is a crime. -Michael Rectenwald, April 24, 2001
SATURDAY SNEAK...BUSH LIES...Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003
*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)
Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.
The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....
The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
'In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president [sic] briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later.'

The obscure goat story of 9-11
It is very important to examine the first reactions President Bush had concerning the events of September 11. You can tell much about the truth by observing the reactions of men. Human nature is almost always the best truth detector and said to be the most accurate lie detector. One of the basic instructions taught to every U.S. military and civilian police trainee is to "watch and observe". Let's observe what really took place before these headline stories are buried in a sea of obscurity.
"In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later. " - Associated Press, September 12, 2001 [bold emphasis added].
"President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders read a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks." - Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Page A20, September 12, 2001 [bold emphasis added].
President Bush became briefly somber and continued reading a story about a goat for nearly another half hour. He didn't politely excuse himself to the children, but rather, temporarily stopped reading only to continue on as if nothing had happened. Is this how you - or anyone around you at the time - reacted when you first heard the news of the WTC tragedy? At the very least, one would think that Bush would have spent a minute or two being properly briefed by his trusted Chief of Staff before finishing his reading of a goat story. If this was new news to him, one would surely think that he would immediately want to know more details. Does anyone else see that this "Presidential" reaction was out of place and doesn't fit the circumstances? His reaction seems to imply that this was not fresh news to him, but more of a confirmation of what he might have already known about. Watch and observe.
In human nature, this kind of reaction - in reality, a non-reaction - usually comes about when the hearer either already has knowledge of what he was just told, or he doesn't have any concern over what he was just told. Some have already said that Bush didn't want to upset the children as an excuse for his continuing to read the goat story. Wouldn't one have to believe that these 7 year old children were already upset and nervous about having the President read a story with them in their classroom? A simple and polite "Children, I'm sorry I can't read with you any longer. As the President, sometimes my schedule changes quickly, but I want to thank you for allowing me to join you in reading this story" would have been fitting. The problem is that's not what happened. Watch and observe.
It struck us odd that both the above newspaper articles (as well as many others) stressed the word somber in describing the President's first as well as delayed reactions. That seemed normal enough at first, but then we decided to find out what a somber reaction and manner of speech really is. Watch and observe.
somber / sombre.* French sombre ; Spanish sombra , shade, prob. from LL. subumbrare to put in the shade; Latin sub under + umbra shade. See Umbrage.
umbrage.* French ombrage , shade, suspicion, umbrage. Latin umbraticus , belonging to shade, French umbra, a shade. Cf. Umber, Umbratic. 1. Shade; shadow; obscurity; hence, that which affords a shade, as a screen of trees or foliage. 2. Shadowy resemblance; shadow.
Of or pertaining to the shade or darkness; shadowy; unreal; secluded; retired.
darkness.** Absence of light; black hole; dark star; dark matter, cold dark matter. Occultation, adumbration, obumbration; sunless, lightless; dark as pitch, dark as a pit, dark as Erebus[Lat]. somber, dusky; unilluminated...
* Webster's Dictionary, 1913 [underlining added].
** Roget's Thesaurus, 1911, search results for "somber" [underlining added].
Now it appears that the somber reaction of President Bush is perhaps more revealing than at first glimpse. If the President "briefly turned somber" and "spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks," then the reporters were describing both his demeanor and speech as being shadowy, obscure, dark, unreal, without light, and suspicious. Was this a mistaken word of description, or were they accurately reporting what they saw and observed?
These newspaper reports are describing the character and demeanor of the President as dark, black, and lightless when Andrew Card told him about the WTC disaster. They did not describe him as becoming sorrowful or concerned, nor even that he appeared upset. They deliberately chose the word somber to relay to their readers how President Bush appeared. Watch and observe.
The reporters also used the same word somber to describe his manner of speech after having had 30 minutes to (perhaps) compose himself from such tragic news. His manner of speech, nearly a half hour later, was portrayed with the same descriptions of obscurity, being void of light, suspicious, unrealistic, and shadowy. This is not the depiction of a man who is upset, worried, or concerned about a grave tragedy. Watch and observe.
When one learns of tragic news at the first hearing, his reaction is always described with characteristic words such as shocked, dismayed, worried, awe, sadness, or upset. This describes how all of us reacted when we first heard the news of the WTC disaster... that is, all of us except President Bush, according to the reporters who were watching and observing him.
When one hears of tragic news after he was told it would - or most likely would - take place, his reaction is described with characteristic words such as disappointed, angry, remorseful, or somber. Watch and observe.
Either the Sarasota, Florida newspaper and AP reporters were both wrong in choosing the word somber, or the President just may have been showing us that he knew what was to happen before he read the goat story to a class of 7 year old children. Either way, be it irresponsible reporting or an irresponsible President, this is a tragedy in and of itself. However, it's hard to believe that two or more witnesses separately chose the character word somber by mistake.
The worst thing we can do is to react to the events of September 11 without watching and observing first, as this is our first defense against possible deception. Human reactions are great lie detectors simply for the fact that they are very difficult to hide. The lies that may surround the WTC disaster must be exposed. Truth appears to have already been the first casualty before any airplane was hijacked.
Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.
The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.
When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.
An aide to the vice president said yesterday: "This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time."
The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.
"Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process," the aide added.
The company would not say how much the payments are. The obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of $100,000 and $1m. Nor is it clear how they are calculated.
Halliburton is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group - invited to bid for contracts in what may turn out to be the biggest reconstruction project since the second world war.
It is estimated to be worth up to $900m for the preliminary work alone, such as rebuilding Iraq's hospitals, ports, airports and schools.
The contract winners will be able to establish a presence in post-Saddam Iraq that should give them an invaluable edge in winning future contracts.
The defence department contract awarded to the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR), to control oil fires if Saddam Hussein sets the well heads alight, will put the company in an excellent position to bid for huge contracts when Iraq's oil industry is rehabilitated.
KBR has already benefited considerably from the "war on terror". It has so far been awarded contracts worth nearly $33m to build the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for al-Qaida suspects.
Asked whether the payments to Mr Cheney represented a conflict of interest, Halliburton's spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said: "We have been working as a government contractor since the 1940s. Since this time, KBR has become the premier provider of logistics and support services to all branches of the military."
In the five years Mr Cheney was at the helm, Halliburton nearly doubled the amount of business it did with the government to $2.3bn. The company also more than doubled its political contributions to $1.2m, overwhelmingly to Republican candidates.



Arming the Left: Is the time now? --by Charles Southwell*
I hope you didn't open this page to read what we already know: that this is the most rightwing government we have ever had in the US, even far right of Bush I, that our rights are being eroded daily, and that our democratic process is all but gone, if it isn't already gone.
I hope you came here to read about tactics for action that will finally have some consequence. I hope you agree that our protests, petitions, letters, and on and on, have been utterly ignored. The fascistas that run our country laugh at us. They believe they can do anything and that we haven't got the guts to revolt, but only to wage a war of words. I have seen the Bush cavalcades, as they drive away, his aids sneering and jeering and laughing and mocking our protests. They think we are a JOKE. Tens of millions of Americans protested the war, but because we posed no REAL THREAT to their power, we were UTTERLY IGNORED.
As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. Right now, we are ignored because we present no organized power to fight this onslaught of anti-democratic, totalitarian government that we are up against.
It will take time, but it's time to get more left-leaning liberals and outright leftists to at least POSE a threat, by getting organized and getting ARMED. It's time to get well past this liberal phobia and taboo about weapons and force. After all, our liberalism was won with a REVOLUTIONARY WAR! they used real guns in that war. The French Revolution was also a WAR and they used real weapons there too.
Perhaps people believe that since the US federal government has the fire power to blow up the world X times over, that we have no chance, and that the 2nd amendment is therefore moot. I used to think the same thing. In fact, this was the major if not the only lasting upshot of the Cold War! the Cold war wasn't about one opposing ideology against the other; it wasn't about the East vs. the West. In the end, it was about the respective governments against their own peoples. The Cold War resulted in the repression of the peoples in those countries, and likewise, of peoples around the world.
But, it is still a myth that the US citizens are powerless against their government, a government that has become tyrannical and has usurped our democratic rights. We are not powerless against it. If we get organized and armed, and form a force of hundreds of thousands, we can overcome this government, or pose enough of a threat to have power. The government cannot drop a nuclear bomb on DC. It cannot risk the lives of whole cities, without revealing its own contradictions that is. Further, there is no guarantee that the military will remain loyal to a government that continually reveals itself as imperialistic and ruthless and having no real concern for its own personnel. The Iraqi occupation is teaching many of them that hard lesson. They are realizing that not Hussein, but the Bush regime, is their real enemy.
So I ask you, isn't it time that left-leaning liberals and leftists exercised their 2nd amendment rights and got organized and prepared? Isn't it time, before it's too late? Isn't it time, before another Bush coup and the following four years of increased repression and economic ruin?
We should remain committed to the absolute condemnation of individual acts of violence or terrorism. Read Trotsky's essay on terrorism, in the political education section of this website. Our reference to Trotsky does not mean that we are Marxists. I am merely referring to a good argument for any real revolutionaries against terrorism. We want a democratic government, which is not predicated on a Marxist state. In fact, we leave that to the future of the new movement for democracy, given that the future should be democratic and in a democracy, the people will decide. But, our goal is to make a future wherein the people CAN and WILL decide!!!!!!

All if not most of this MASSIVE text is composed by newpapers.

Proofs right here boys and girls. (by the way all this is before the Iraq invasion.)

60. S.709 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Why does he deserve one?

What Bush has done for America

I can sum this up pretty quick.

Bush has lost America respect & credibility around the world.

A nice cartoon. :)
http://www.gop.com/news/Cartoon.aspx?id=679

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0303.jpg

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0331.jpg

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0427.gif

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0426.gif

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0604.gif

http://www.gop.com/news/Cartoon.aspx?id=848

A nice cartoon. :)
http://www.gop.com/news/Cartoon.aspx?id=679

Ahh, ya gotta love propaganda, especially such obvious propaganda..*LOL*

Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations

From The New York Times

By Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Glen Justice
July 26, 2004

Washington, July 25- Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.

The lawyer, Pierce O'Donnell, was charged two months ago by the Los Angeles district attorney with violating California election laws. Similar charges were lodged by the city's ethics commission, which accused Mr. O'Donnell of reimbursing 22 employees and others for $25,500 in contributions to the 2001 mayoral campaign of James K. Hahn…

The Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign-finance laws, has sought information about Mr. O'Donnell's fund-raising activities from California officials…

In March 2003, Mr. O'Donnell helped put on a fund-raiser that took in $340,000, according to a Kerry-Edwards campaign aide. The official said the money raised by Mr. O'Donnell was returned on Saturday …

Reached on Sunday, Mr. O'Donnell declined to comment. …

At least five people affiliated with Mr. O'Donnell or his firm, O'Donnell & Shaeffer, gave money to both the Hahn and Edwards campaigns, including several named in the charges against Mr. O'Donnell. Three had signed special pledge cards indicating the Edwards donations came from their personal funds, according to the Kerry-Edwards aide. …

In fact, the cards the Edwards campaign asked contributors to sign are part of a program instituted after allegations surfaced last year that employees at Turner & Associates, a plaintiffs firm in Little Rock, Ark., may have been promised reimbursement for $10,000 in donations in March 2003 to the Edwards presidential campaign. After the allegations arose, the Edwards campaign returned the money.

The donations from the Turner firm have been under investigation by the Justice Department's public integrity section, though a Justice Department official said this month that any inquiry involving the Turner firm "did not involve Edwards."

Turner & Associates and its employees have donated $206,000 to Mr. Edwards or his political action committee over the years, making the firm his fifth-largest career contributor…

Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations

From The New York Times

By Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Glen Justice
July 26, 2004

Washington, July 25- Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.

The lawyer, Pierce O'Donnell, was charged two months ago by the Los Angeles district attorney with violating California election laws. Similar charges were lodged by the city's ethics commission, which accused Mr. O'Donnell of reimbursing 22 employees and others for $25,500 in contributions to the 2001 mayoral campaign of James K. Hahn…

The Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign-finance laws, has sought information about Mr. O'Donnell's fund-raising activities from California officials…

In March 2003, Mr. O'Donnell helped put on a fund-raiser that took in $340,000, according to a Kerry-Edwards campaign aide. The official said the money raised by Mr. O'Donnell was returned on Saturday …

Reached on Sunday, Mr. O'Donnell declined to comment. …

At least five people affiliated with Mr. O'Donnell or his firm, O'Donnell & Shaeffer, gave money to both the Hahn and Edwards campaigns, including several named in the charges against Mr. O'Donnell. Three had signed special pledge cards indicating the Edwards donations came from their personal funds, according to the Kerry-Edwards aide. …

In fact, the cards the Edwards campaign asked contributors to sign are part of a program instituted after allegations surfaced last year that employees at Turner & Associates, a plaintiffs firm in Little Rock, Ark., may have been promised reimbursement for $10,000 in donations in March 2003 to the Edwards presidential campaign. After the allegations arose, the Edwards campaign returned the money.

The donations from the Turner firm have been under investigation by the Justice Department's public integrity section, though a Justice Department official said this month that any inquiry involving the Turner firm "did not involve Edwards."

Turner & Associates and its employees have donated $206,000 to Mr. Edwards or his political action committee over the years, making the firm his fifth-largest career contributor…

I wonder if Bush would have returned any of his money...

Good reading:

Intelligence Failure

From the Publisher:

This definitive account of Clinton's greatest failure as president details how his indecisiveness, negligence, poor judgment, and denigration of the U.S. military made America an open target for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Eight years before 9/11, on February 26, 1993, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network declared war against the United States with a deadly attack on the World Trade Center.

Al Qaeda continued to wage war on the U.S. throughout the Clinton Administration, attacking Khobar Towers in 1996, two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. How could these attacks happen? How could Al Qaeda wage these assaults against the strongest, best-defended nation in the world?

Intelligence Failure is the definitive account of Bill Clinton’s greatest failure as president. Using exclusive research and previously unreported findings from congressional investigations and other sources, David Bossie details how Clinton’s poor leadership and denigration of both the U.S. military and intelligence services exposed America to terrorist assault.

“September 11, 2001, may have happened under Bush’s watch,” Bossie declares, “but it will always remain Clinton’s legacy.”


A National Party No More

From the publisher:

With the growl of the Marine sergeant he was, Senator Zell Miller leaves no doubt that he believes his own Democratic Party is badly out of step with most of the country and needs to shape up or ship out.

As part of a stinging critique of the Democratic Party, Miller outlines key positions on important issues that can again make the party relevant for the entire nation. From tax cuts to welfare, gun control to the environment, the arts to education, immigration to terrorism, Miller identifies values that make sense to a growing majority of Americans.

Miller’s candid analysis of the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton further underscores his conclusion that the Democratic Party can no longer field a serious presidential challenge.

Many party loyalists will not like what Senator Miller writes; yet his credentials are beyond question, for few Democrats have worked longer or stronger for the party and its candidates.

Zell Miller has served in an elective office in each of the last six decades. When he left office as governor after two terms, he had an 85 percent approval rating, prompting the Washington Post to call him the most popular governor in the country. After getting to Washington, he became President Bush’s biggest Democratic supporter, but steadfastly refused to switch parties.

A National Party No More is a firsthand account from the enigmatic senator who has confounded his Democratic colleagues. Driven by conscience and common sense, Senator Miller names the self-destructive direction of his party and stubbornly pulls the Democratic family toward reform.

Zell Miller began his career in public service in 1959 with a term as mayor of Young Harris, Georgia. In 1960, he was elected to the Georgia Senate at the age of 28. In 1974, he won the first of four consecutive terms as Georgia’s lieutenant governor. Then in 1990, Miller ran for governor and won the first of two terms he would serve as the state’s top leader.

Miller’s HOPE Scholarship program was dubbed by the Los Angeles Times as “the most far-reaching scholarship program in the nation.’’ His pre-kindergarten program won an award for innovation from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

After leaving the governor’s office in 1999, Miller taught at Emory University and at his alma maters, the University of Georgia and Young Harris College. Five books have been written by Miller, including Corps Values: Everything You Need To Know I Learned in the Marines. He also served on several corporate boards before joining the Senate, where he now serves.


The Many Faces of John Kerry

From the Publisher
Voters know next to nothing about the presidential candidates, except for the distorted information pulled from sound bites on the radio and television, the scripted and coached debates, and the candidates' own manipulative campaign ads. That's why this book is an absolute necessity for every conscientious American. Using the in-depth, investigative reporting he's become known for, Bossie will give readers the real scoop on the upcoming presidential election's Democratic nominee--exposing his (or her) voting record, relevant family history, political influences, real stances on issues, chances for winning, and any shady or unethical dealings the candidate would rather not have the electorate know about. David Bossie, who has previously co-written two such books, has the access and the hard-nosed reporter's savvy to ferret out the truth about whoever the candidate turns out to be and present it to readers in a gripping, no-nonsense style.

I wonder if Bush would have returned any of his money...
you can bet your house he would.

Kerry flip floppers:

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq.
Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘” (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)


In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)



In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/0

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)



Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)


Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)



But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.
Kerry Created His Own Hard Money PAC Called Citizen Soldier Fund, Which Raised Over $700,000.

On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator.

you can bet your house he would.
Seeing as I don't own one you saying he wouldn't?

Organizations Linked To Hezbollah Offered To Help Distribute Michael Moore's Film In The Middle East

Moore Compared Iraqi Terrorists To American Revolutionary War Heroes

Seeing as I don't own one you saying he wouldn't?
I do, I would bet that he would.

Republican Party History Lesson:

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. While the Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt tended to dominate American politics in the 1930's and 40's, for 28 of the forty years from 1952 through 1992, the White House was in Republican hands - under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Reagan and Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

From The Beginning

Abolishing slavery. Free speech. Women's suffrage. In today's stereotypes, none of these sounds like a typical Republican issue, yet they are stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early on.

Reducing the government. Streamlining the bureaucracy. Returning power to the states. These issues don't sound like they would be the promises of the party of Lincoln, the party that fought to preserve the national union, but they are, and logically so. With a core belief in the idea of the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, bloated government.

The Republican Party has always thrived on challenges and difficult positions. Its present role as leader of the revolution in which the principles of government are being re-evaluated is a role it has traditionally embraced.

At the time of its founding, the Republican Party was organized as an answer to the divided politics, political turmoil, arguments and internal division, particularly over slavery, that plagued the many existing political parties in the United States in 1854. The Free Soil Party, asserting that all men had a natural right to the soil, demanded that the government re-evaluate homesteading legislation and grant land to settlers free of charge. The Conscience Whigs, the "radical" faction of the Whig Party in the North, alienated themselves from their Southern counterparts by adopting an anti-slavery position. And the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed territories to determine whether slavery would be legalized in accordance with "popular sovereignty" and thereby nullify the principles of the Missouri Compromise, created a schism within the Democratic Party.

A staunch Anti-Nebraska Democrat, Alvan E. Bovay, like his fellow Americans, was disillusioned by this atmosphere of confusion and division. Taking advantage of the political turmoil caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bovay united discouraged members from the Free Soil Party, the Conscience Whigs and the Anti-Nebraska Democrats. Meeting in a Congregational church in Ripon, Wis., he helped establish a party that represented the interests of the North and the abolitionists by merging two fundamental issues: free land and preventing the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Realizing the new party needed a name to help unify it, Bovay decided on the term Republican because it was simple, synonymous with equality and alluded to the earlier party of Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republicans.

On July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Mich., the Republican Party formally organized itself by holding its first convention, adopting a platform and nominating a full slate of candidates for state offices. Other states soon followed, and the first Republican candidate for president, John C. Frémont, ran in 1856 with the slogan "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont."

Even though he ran on a third-party ticket, Frémont managed to capture a third of the vote, and the Republican Party began to add members throughout the land. As tensions mounted over the slavery issue, more anti-slavery Republicans began to run for office and be elected, even with the risks involved with taking this stance. Republican Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts experienced this danger firsthand. In May 1856, he delivered a passionate anti-slavery speech in which he made critical remarks about several pro-slavery senators, including Andrew F. Butler of South Carolina. Sumner infuriated Rep. Preston S. Brooks, the son of one of Butler's cousins, who felt his family honor had been insulted. Two days later, Brooks walked into the Senate and beat Sumner unconscious with a cane. This incident electrified the nation and helped to galvanize Northern opinion against the South; Southern opinion hailed Brooks as a hero. But Sumner stood by his principles, and after a three-year, painful convalescence, he returned to the Senate to continue his struggle against slavery.

Leading The Way On the Issues

Some people have argued that Republicans fought to give blacks equal rights and then the vote as a way of wresting control of the South away from the Democrats. While it is true that almost all blacks voted Republican, these were very dangerous and controversial issues at the time. For whatever reason, many Republican politicians risked their careers on that period's "third rail" of politics and managed to not only abolish slavery, but eventually even established a black's right to vote as well. In fact, many blacks even held elected office and were influential in state legislatures. And, in 1869, the first blacks entered Congress as members of the Republican Party, establishing a trend that was not broken until 1935 when the first black Democrat finally was elected to Congress.

Standing in sharp contrast to the two existing political parties' present stereotypes regarding minorities and women, once again the Republican Party was the vanguard in relation to women. In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican, became the first woman to serve in the House. Committed to her pacifist beliefs, she was the only member of Congress to vote against entry into both World War I and World War II.

Shortly after Ms. Rankin's election to Congress, the 19th Amendment was passed in 1919. The amendment's journey to ratification had been a long and difficult one. Starting in 1896, the Republican Party became the first major party to officially favor women's suffrage. That year, Republican Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304-88). Only 16 Republicans opposed the amendment.

When the amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican-controlled legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were controlled by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.

Whit, you are doing an excellent job. Thumbs up to ya. You are doing very good research.

Whit, you are doing an excellent job. Thumbs up to ya. You are doing very good research.
Thanks.
:)

OPINION: Kerry Claims No Child Left Behind Is “Unfunded."

FACT: President Bush Has Increased K-12 Education Spending By 40% Since He Took Office – More Than During Eight Years Under President Clinton.
Now, Kerry Criticizes Education Funding Levels, But Missed Votes While Campaigning For President. In 2003, Kerry missed at least 24 important education votes, many votes for education funding. On the campaign trail, Kerry missed 292 votes in 2003, or 64%. 24 of those votes were education votes.
(cause funding education isn't important like pandering for votes is)

Kerry:
Chooses Special Interests
Over Lower Health Care Costs

ATTACKED PRESIDENT BUSH FOR
PHARMACEUTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BUT TOOK THOUSANDS FROM EMPLOYEES
OF VERY SAME FIRMS HE ATTACKED

Kerry Has Raised $60,000 From Employees Of At Least 11 Firms Contracted To Provide New Prescription Drug Cards. (Sharon Theimer, "Medicare Drug Card Providers Include Big Political, Lobbying Spenders," The Associated Press, 5/10/04; Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 5/11/04)

Since 1989, Kerry Has Raised $1,761,781 From Health Care Industry Employees, Fourth-Most Of Any Senator During That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 5/10/04)

ü Kerry's Presidential Campaign Has Raised $967,449 From Health Care Industry Employees. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 5/10/04)

ATTACKED PRESIDENT BUSH FOR
RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS …

"Sen. John F. Kerry Charged Monday That President Bush Was Ignoring Soaring Health Care Costs, As The Democratic Presidential Candidate Launched A Week-Long Campaign To Highlight His Plan To Reduce Insurance Premiums And Extend Coverage To 27 Million Uninsured Americans." (Jim VandeHei, "Kerry Addresses Health Care Costs," The Washington Post, 5/11/04)

BUT OPPOSES MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM
THAT LOWERS HEALTH CARE COSTS …

Kerry Opposed Or Voted To Block Medical Liability Reform At Least Ten Times. (H.R. 956, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 39-61: R 10-44; D 29-17; I 0-0, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #140: Motion Agreed To 65-35: R 24-30; D 41-5, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #141: Motion Agreed To 56-44: R 13-41; D 43-3, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #144: Passed 53-47: R 48-6; D 5-41, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 46-53: R 44-10; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #152: Motion Rejected 47-52: R 45-9; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #160: Motion Agreed To 54-44:: R 46-7; D 8-37, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #161: Passed 61-37: R 46-7; D 15-30, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #212: Motion Agreed To 52-46: R 2-45; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 812, CQ Vote #197: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 6-42; D 50-0; I 1-0, 7/30/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

AND TOOK OVER $1 MILLION FROM
TRIAL LAWYERS WHO OPPOSE REFORM
Since 1991, Kerry Has Raised $1,457,371 From Trial Lawyers. (Dwight L. Morris & Associates Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed 5/10/04; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 2/6/04)

ü Kerry's Presidential Campaign Has Raised $892,625 From Trial Lawyers. (Dwight L. Morris & Associates Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed 5/10/04)

Washington Post Editorial Calls Trial Lawyers "Special Interest." "What's beyond dispute is that trial lawyers are a special interest. They pump millions of dollars into Democratic coffers because their livelihoods depend on such legislative issues as caps on damages in medical malpractice cases, limits on class action lawsuits and settlement of asbestos litigation." (Editorial, "Mr. Edwards's Bundle Of Secrets," The Washington Post, 1/23/04)

Kerry Opposed Medicare Prescription Drug Bill

Lots of unsubstiantiated accusations with no basis in reality.



It's a freaking fact! My family is full of war veterans! They got the shaft!

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Lots of unsubstiantiated accusations with no basis in reality.


Bull.

Thats all statistically and numerically proven.

Standing in sharp contrast to the two existing political parties' present stereotypes regarding minorities and women, once again the Republican Party was the vanguard in relation to women. In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican, became the first woman to serve in the House. Committed to her pacifist beliefs, she was the only member of Congress to vote against entry into both World War I and World War II.

Shortly after Ms. Rankin's election to Congress, the 19th Amendment was passed in 1919. The amendment's journey to ratification had been a long and difficult one. Starting in 1896, the Republican Party became the first major party to officially favor women's suffrage. That year, Republican Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304-88). Only 16 Republicans opposed the amendment.

When the amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican-controlled legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were controlled by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.very nice history lesson but when do we get to the part when the Republican party went BAD? Also I notise that all these things your praising the old GOP for were liberal stances LOL

Kerry Opposed Medicare Prescription Drug Bill
Because Bushs medicare deform Bill that he even had to blackmail other republicans to pass in the dead of night was written by the drug companies and resulted in seniors being denied access to affordable drugs all so Bush could pander to his corporate masters

Whit for somebody who thinks he knows history, you left off one gigantic detail.

The Republican party of the 1800's is the same as today in name only.

The current Repubs are more like the Democrats. In fact they are. You left off when Truman chased out the Dixicrats who ran to the Repubs.

Teddy who set up the park system would never allow the shrubs environment policy to happen. So what if he "expanded" the parks. Does not make up for the fact he is opening them to logging oh wait support by logging companies. Never mind the fact his environmental policy was primarily influenced by the logging companies.

The Shrubs medical "benefits" for the elderly have not appeared. In fact many can't offord or have given up meds due to the vastly confusing increase of buracracy. The medical program did wonders. It was boon for both the pharmies and the insurence companies(*shock* rates still increase significantly even though many drugs are now over the counter).

I will save you the reply.

"Unsubstanciated Liberal lies" :rolleyes:

Instead of posting the bills, you might look into the after affects. It may look slick on paper but it's implementation can lead to things unexpected or expected in the shrubs case.

Yes, Bush has just done it again.
US President George W Bush offered up a new entry for his catalogue of "Bushisms" today, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people".

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $US417 billion ($A593 billion) defence spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Add this to such previous gems as:

"they have misunderestimated me"

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family". - N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - 11/1/00

What has Bush given to the US : an embarrasement, and he has managed to provide a rich source of both amusement and resentment to the rest of the world.

Bush haters don't ever find proof or evidence of their claims, they just drop bombs, personally attack and then run away like frightened kitty cats. For shame.

Twisting and spinning. It's the new liberal lefty game in town.

For some odd reason what you had just said in that sentence seems a lot like the cat and mouse game we play in our world doesnt it? Seems to me like that is the same sitituation that is undergoing in Iraq? I really can't see how someone can justify that he has done a good job in his time in the office....but that must just be me? Or maybe in other words "america lives in a box..unable to see out of it, only what is within..." Maybe, I'm just imagining the events that are happening in our every day life...so i can't say that your statement is justified...you show me some good things he has done and i will show you my friendship

... I really can't see how someone can justify that he has done a good job in his time in the office....but that must just be me?
....you show me some good things he has done and i will show you my friendship
Don't overvalue the worth of your friendship.

I suppose freeing 30 million people from two different but oppressive regimes does not count. Too bad, because the 15,000+ people who where being executed and buried in mass graves - not to mention the countless more who were jailed, tortured and raped, would probably want it to count.

The soft-landing of the dot-com-bomb was pretty nice. Barely dented the economy.

It is good to see that we survived a recession without any cuts in federal services, and increases in spending in many, including eduction.

Campaign finance reform was flawed, but a good start.

Oh yes, lets lot forget Libya. One less whacko to torment citizens of his country.

We freed many people yes...but we also lost much respect from the rest of the world? Oh and most soldiers over there haven't much of a clue what they stand for. It seems to me they just sit there and wait...Wait to help a troubled people...but oh yes Bush is a good man! Aye, a good man he is! You wouldn't no more then anyone else...

I can't say that we really do know more then the soldiers over there...We don't see what they see... But I'm sure someone will reply that they know more! The day that you see what they see is the day that one can argue about a obsessed political world.

Interesting name. DDR.

Yes, isn't it?

DDR-The German Republic

But i know what your refering too lol....East Germany aka DDR?

Yes, isn't it?

DDR-The German Republic

But i know what your refering too lol....East Germany aka DDR?
That I am. And The German Republic is not Der Deutschen Republik. It's Die Deutsche Republik. Der Deutschen Republik would sound more like: For the German republic in English.

Oh and the name Von Witzleben stands for some sort of royalty? My great grandmother has Von Winzierski :D

Oh and the name Von Witzleben stands for some sort of royalty? My great grandmother has Von Winzierski :D
Actually it´s the name of Erwin von Witzleben. A German general from WWII.

My correction i meant for the german rebulic lol well same thing

My correction i meant for the german rebulic lol well same thing
Ah, ok then.

I speak German fluently and am half german...yet i still have problems with my spelling or my translations from german to english yet i learn more each day

I speak German fluently and am half german...yet i still have problems with my spelling or my translations from german to english yet i learn more each day
Es stimmt also doch das die meisten Deutschen scheisse sind wenn es um fremdsprachen geht. :D

very nice history lesson but when do we get to the part when the Republican party went BAD?


It's redundant, since the Democratic party is just as corrupt.

Vote Libertarian!!

So where did this general coordinate his battles at? WWII intrests me a lot always nice to learn more

So where did this general coordinate his battles at? WWII intrests me a lot always nice to learn more
Biography von Erwin von Witzleben (//www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/WitzlebenErwin/)
Hab mal filmmaterial gesehen von seiner verhandlung vor Freislers Volksgerichthof. Man hatte ihm die hosentraeger weggenommen so das er sich die ganze zeit die hose hochhalten musste. Waehrend Freisler ihn deswegen verhoente.

He was awarded a Marshal's baton by Hitler was he not?

He was awarded a Marshal's baton by Hitler was he not?
Yes. And he became supreme commander of army group D during the French campaign. And later he became supreme commander of the West.

Sorry im still a bit rusty on my german writting :cool: aber das ist richtig

i dont see how anyone can say they no more about whats happening than soldiers and they do know what they are standing for, colin powel visited Iraq and gave a speech meant for all american servicemen stationed in Iraq and im pretty sure they know why they are there. Bush has no control over gas prices it is not his fault that OPEC decided to cut drilling, and bush did not use the oil reserves because it was not an emergency it went up to about 2 dollars after opecs decision and in worst places went up to about 3 dollars that is not an emergency. and it was Bush that convinced the Saudi prince to flood the market with oil brining oil prices back down maybe not that much but it still came down. Bush can not control what happens while he is in office.

Sorry im still a bit rusty on my german writting :cool: aber das ist richtig
Was ist richtig?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We freed many people yes...but we also lost much respect from the rest of the world? Oh and most soldiers over there haven't much of a clue what they stand for. It seems to me they just sit there and wait...Wait to help a troubled people...but oh yes Bush is a good man! Aye, a good man he is! You wouldn't no more then anyone else...



Another Thing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't say that we really do know more then the soldiers over there...We don't see what they see... But I'm sure someone will reply that they know more! The day that you see what they see is the day that one can argue about a obsessed political world.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of posts between our debate didnt want you not to see my reply there Bozzy

i was saying that about the one comment before but i came in late with the post :confused:

Thunderland i had seen one of your previous posts very witty

I wonder if Bush would have returned any of his money...

Has Bush returned any of Kenneth Lay's money?

Edwards returns money from a suspect source, and this is used as an attock on him?

I just don't understand the Bush supporters ability to be completely and utterly blind to anything but their own monomaniacal devotion to the Shrub.

Lots of unsubstiantiated accusations with no basis in reality.

not that you actually refuted any of them.

Who, exactly, have we freed in either country? No Democratic elections have occured. Warlords primarily control Afghanistan, and much of Iraq is controlled by the insurgents (Falluja anyone?)

Since no one has been elected, anyone who states that Democracy has been brought to these locations is an idiot.

Since no one is really safer in Iraq or Afghanistan, how can we say we've brough stability to the region?

If and when we finish the job we started, then you can say "We've Freed 30 million people!"

Oh, and since the Shi'ite majority of Irag is likely to vote for a hardline Islamic leader, we're really only turning Iraq into another Iran (read: a real terrorist state.) Unless of course, we suppress democracy and make sure our strongman rules in Iraq.

Organizations Linked To Hezbollah Offered To Help Distribute Michael Moore's Film In The Middle East

Moore Compared Iraqi Terrorists To American Revolutionary War Heroes

um they were both irate killers being manipulated by plutocrats...what's not to compare?

Hmm now did Colin visit them all? No he didn't so you can't say they all really do know what they are fighting for. I mean really what are they fighting for in the first place?

not that you actually refuted any of them.

Of course not, it is so much easier for the pro-Bush crowd to dismiss such things with a wave of their hand...I imagine it helps keep them from engaging their brains

We freed many people yes...but we also lost much respect from the rest of the world? Oh and most soldiers over there haven't much of a clue what they stand for. It seems to me they just sit there and wait...Wait to help a troubled people...but oh yes Bush is a good man! Aye, a good man he is! You wouldn't no more then anyone else...
Hmmm, free people from oppression and death or respect from French and German elitists... tough decision. Which is the moral choice? Liberal quandry, but not one for conservatives.

"most soldiers over there haven't much of a clue" yes, and you sitting half a world away are so much more enlightened than the people who are right there.

You are why it is so easy to call liberals arrogant.

Whittier, I used to think you were a socialist but I totally agree with you, Bush is a great president.

Who, exactly, have we freed in either country? No Democratic elections have occured. Warlords primarily control Afghanistan, and much of Iraq is controlled by the insurgents (Falluja anyone?)

Since no one has been elected, anyone who states that Democracy has been brought to these locations is an idiot.

Since no one is really safer in Iraq or Afghanistan, how can we say we've brough stability to the region?

If and when we finish the job we started, then you can say "We've Freed 30 million people!"

Oh, and since the Shi'ite majority of Irag is likely to vote for a hardline Islamic leader, we're really only turning Iraq into another Iran (read: a real terrorist state.) Unless of course, we suppress democracy and make sure our strongman rules in Iraq.

WOW! which delusion first?;

Hmm, Fallujia is to Iraq as Fresno is to California. Last I checked Fresno wasn't "most" of California. Maybe your world atlas is different than mine.

I guess since mass graves, torture, imprisonment and rape was committed by the government that means it was 'safe' in Iraq and Afganistan before their liberation? It is not 'safe' by most definition now, but it is less dangerous, a step in the right direction. (Particularly for the outspoken)

Since no presidential elections have been held in America in almost four years I guess you'd argue that there is no democracy here either. Heck, the Declaration and Constitution were all written before an election also. I guess that means that there is really not a representative government in the US at all.

Next election we'd better be careful or a radical Christian Right will take power and force the public education system to teach bible study all day, along with fundamentalism and creationsism. If only our founding fathers had spent the time to draft a bill of Rights to protect everyone. Maybe the Iraqis should try that too? What? They did? That was pretty smart.

Warlords control Afganistan? Someone oughta tell all those people registering for the elections that. Maybe Karzai should know too. I'm sure it will come as a shock.

Gee, maybe you should consider the definition of the term 'idiot' more carefully next time you look into a mirror...

Warlords control Afganistan? Someone oughta tell all those people registering for the elections that. Maybe Karzai should know too. I'm sure it will come as a shock.


Well if it means anything. One of our workers is Afgan. He fled the Soviets. He still has many relatives in Kabul.

They say things are not as orderly as it is projected here.

Karzai owns the cities but the surrounding areas are pretty much under control of the regional warlords.

It's not pretty at the moment.

I will have to ask him for an update. He checks on them periodically to send them stuff they can't get.....

Warlords control Afganistan? Someone oughta tell all those people registering for the elections that. Maybe Karzai should know too. I'm sure it will come as a shock.

Gee, maybe you should consider the definition of the term 'idiot' more carefully next time you look into a mirror...

Oh right.... it's all hunky dory over there....

http://www.iht.com/articles/532396.htm

"The decision by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to rebuff Defense Minister Muhammad Qasim Fahim by not naming him as one of two vice-presidential candidates has transformed the political landscape of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the country may not be ready for this transformation, and the presidential elections may spark violence.

Afghanistan faces this potential crisis because the Bush administration insisted on holding Afghan elections before those in the United States, while for two years it stalled any action to demobilize its warlord allies. When it belatedly announced plans to demobilize 40 percent of the warlords' militias before elections, it could not carry them out.
...
In the same poll, Afghans named security as their top concern, and they identified the warlords - whom Karzai has now rebuffed - as the greatest threat.
..
This election will take place in a country that has never conducted a presidential election, where the Taliban are assassinating voters and electoral staff, and where there is no rule of law"


And let us not forget that the security is so bad there right now that Doctors without Borders recently felt compelled to leave after having survived there thoughout the Northern Alliance and then the Taliban rule.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aRNK46MMDQxs&refer=uk

Doctors Without Borders said it ``honors the separation of aid from politics,'' and in May criticized U.S.-led coalition forces for distributing leaflets in southern Afghanistan telling Afghans that aid would be tied to information received from them about Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

..

Warlords in Afghanistan control many areas outside the capital, Kabul. More than 20,000 U.S. and NATO-led troops from 30 countries are trying to extend the authority of Karzai's government beyond Kabul and unify the country.

Doctors Without Borders said that, while government officials have shown the group ``credible evidence'' that local commanders were involved in last month's attack, ``they have neither detained nor publicly called for their arrest.''




What do other people think is the state there right now? Well, the British Foreign Office is concerned that it is ripe to implode:http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=760&p=report&a=3

And the US forces are engaging in skirmishes in their attempts to disarm the warlords: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/798050.cms

You know - the ones controlling their own private army's and private feifdoms:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-7-2004_pg7_10 "The warlords include over half a dozen regional leaders who control territory and troops. Some of them function as corps commanders nominally under the Afghanistan government but effectively independent, others entirely outside the government."

And so far the electoral process keeps getting delayed because, among other reasons, the security can't seem to be put in place in order to oversee the first elections in Afghani history to ensure that it is carried out fairly.


So...... if you think that Karzai and national forces control the entirety of Afghanistan - you haven't been keeping up.

WOW! which delusion first?;

Hmm, Fallujia is to Iraq as Fresno is to California. Last I checked Fresno wasn't "most" of California. Maybe your world atlas is different than mine.

I guess since mass graves, torture, imprisonment and rape was committed by the government that means it was 'safe' in Iraq and Afganistan before their liberation? It is not 'safe' by most definition now, but it is less dangerous, a step in the right direction. (Particularly for the outspoken)

Since no presidential elections have been held in America in almost four years I guess you'd argue that there is no democracy here either. Heck, the Declaration and Constitution were all written before an election also. I guess that means that there is really not a representative government in the US at all.

Next election we'd better be careful or a radical Christian Right will take power and force the public education system to teach bible study all day, along with fundamentalism and creationsism. If only our founding fathers had spent the time to draft a bill of Rights to protect everyone. Maybe the Iraqis should try that too? What? They did? That was pretty smart.

Warlords control Afganistan? Someone oughta tell all those people registering for the elections that. Maybe Karzai should know too. I'm sure it will come as a shock.

Gee, maybe you should consider the definition of the term 'idiot' more carefully next time you look into a mirror...

Gee what stupid thing to shove back in your obviously mentally limited face? The thing about no presidential elections happening here in 4 years, so we must not be democratic versus no democratic elections EVER having been held in Iraq?

The fact that you can't tell the difference between the word "much" and "most?"

The fact that 12,000 killed (by both sides, discounting any non warfare casualties due to lack of water, electricity, the recent rises in disease, etc...) in one year seems pretty unsafe to me. Maybe it'll get better, but it hasn't yet.

As much as I'm tempted to, I'm not going to fall for your comparison of Bush as a Religious fanatic to the actual fanatical Islam powers that will take over if Iraq is allowed to elect their own government. Again, I point you to Iran for confirmation of what happens when a country is taken over by fundamentalist muslims.

I'm sorry, but your argument is stupid, ill-informed, and personally insulting, hence the same tone returned to you, you miserable excuse for a sentient being. Eat excrement and die, you fascist pig.

So...... if you think that Karzai and national forces control the entirety of Afghanistan - you haven't been keeping up.
Yeah, I've seen Karzai's troops. On the German channel 2 they showed a documentary about them. Title: America's crusades.
They followed one of Karzais men around for a few days. He was from Kandahar. He had a pretty big mouth and seemed very confident when he was in Kabul with his comrades infront of a foreign camera. But once he was back home, he didn't tell anyone that he was in the Afghan army. Or else he wouldn't live to see another day. When the German reporters told the US colonel that he has to be kidding about sending them to fight the warlords, after 5 to 6 weeks of basic training, he had a hard time to keep a straight face while saying he was confident that these men where ready.

Bozzy = pwned

What a moron

"most soldiers over there haven't much of a clue" yes, and you sitting half a world away are so much more enlightened than the people who are right there.

Yes I actually am enlightened I talk with one soldier almost every weekend...but that is besides the point i know that you will have a comeback in any sort of form...but tell me what are they figthing for tell me this? Is it just to save a suppressed people? or is it for something else? Do we actually know this for a fact ? I can't say that we do most of our opinions are based on theories anyways. So you tell me what they are fighting for im sure someone knows. To me its just a cat and mouse game. Yet the mouse can fight back to. As i said before someone can contradict my opinion....

:headbang: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

On German Channel 2
Von Witzleben

Hey Von, What was Channel 2? Do you just have 3 channel right? Channel 2 was...German 1 or something like that i dont remember

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
all the more reason to un appoint BUSH!!!

Hey Von, What was Channel 2? Do you just have 3 channel right? Channel 2 was...German 1 or something like that i dont remember
Channel 1: ARD
Channel 2: ZDF
Channel 3: N3
These are the 3 main channels. They are subsidised. Then there are numerouse others, both private and regional subsidised ones.

i dont see how anyone can say they no more about whats happening than soldiers and they do know what they are standing for, colin powel visited Iraq and gave a speech meant for all american servicemen stationed in Iraq and im pretty sure they know why they are there. Bush has no control over gas prices it is not his fault that OPEC decided to cut drilling, and bush did not use the oil reserves because it was not an emergency it went up to about 2 dollars after opecs decision and in worst places went up to about 3 dollars that is not an emergency. and it was Bush that convinced the Saudi prince to flood the market with oil brining oil prices back down maybe not that much but it still came down. Bush can not control what happens while he is in office.
If a President can't control what happens why do people praise Reagon. He didn't make any of thatstuff happen you are saying.
Same with Kerry can[t be a bad president becuse he won't control anything as you say, so why not Kerry?

Some stuff about bushes economy:

A recession hit us BEFORE bush became president, and there it was getting bad, then in 2001 things started getting good after bushes tax cuts!. So then right when things start to turn around, 9/11 happens and crashes our market.During this double Recession people are looosing jobs left and right, as the feds are lowering interest rates. During this time we had the LOWEST INFLATION in 20-30 years, as well as teh lowest interest rates in 20-30 years.Then we had the issue of investor trust when companies like Enron and tyco went under for dirty deeds. This affected investor and consumer conifdence, which made everyone spend less. During this time home sales were the Best theyv been in a long time. New home owners rise rapidly as well as refinancing. We get 0% apr car loans. Now suddenly at the middle of 2003 we started getting better. We started adding jobs, and the economy GDP in the 4th quarter rose 7.4% which was the larget rise in 20-30 years. Suddenly we get job growth of 200-300 thousand people a month, and in 4 months bush regained half the jobs lost in his term.


What this goes to show.
is that you cannot blame bush for the following :

Lost jobs
Lower wage jobs
Cost of groceries
Bad economy

Bush has singlehandedly had one of the most record setting economies ever, in all ends.

..Except the job report for July is dismal, and a lower number for June's job creation has just been released. The stock market is on a recemt downward trend, median pay is way down (averges are misleading,) gas prices are up, helth coverage premiums are up. GDP and corporate profits are way below estimate...so no, our economy isn't exactly perky at the moment.

You want to praise Bush for the economy? Tell that to all the people out of work.

A recession hit us BEFORE bush became president, and there it was getting bad, then in 2001 things started getting good after bushes tax cuts!. So then right when things start to turn around, 9/11 happens and crashes our market.

That isnt true.

Remember the huge surplus that we had right after Clintion?
That means we had more money than the budget called for.

Voodoo economics dont work.
Reagan eventually proved this, so did Bush Sr.
Dubya comes along and decides to do the very same thing?

Say whaaa?

Clinton did the opposite.
He gave the tax cuts back to the working class.
What happened?
The greatest period of economic growth in American history.

Kerry, who's economic policies are much in line with Clinton's will do the same.
What will be the result?

The working class will have more money.
So, they will spend more.
The business world benefits, and they expand, hire more people, open that second store....etc....

Why would the Conservatives hate this idea?
Becuase Kerry will take away the big tax cuts that Dubya gave them.

Well if it means anything. One of our workers is Afgan. He fled the Soviets. He still has many relatives in Kabul.

They say things are not as orderly as it is projected here.

Karzai owns the cities but the surrounding areas are pretty much under control of the regional warlords.

It's not pretty at the moment.

I will have to ask him for an update. He checks on them periodically to send them stuff they can't get.....
Once the US and other foreign oppressors (unfortunately some German soldiers too) are out of Afghanistan, they will take matters into their own hands and make their country the way they want it to be. No foreign nation can dictate a form of government on another nation. Not even the D$A. Iraq will fail just like Afghanistan has failed. Glorifying your own deeds will not change that.

What this goes to show.
is that you cannot blame bush for the following :

Lost jobs
Lower wage jobs
Cost of groceries
Bad economy

Bush has singlehandedly had one of the most record setting economies ever, in all ends.

Wrong, wrong wrong.

Lost jobs, CAN be attributed to Bush, especially since the unemployment rate under his administration, hit an all time high, since the Graet Depression.
Not to mention that Bush has approved of outsourcing jobs to foreign markets.


Yes Bush had a record setting economy.....but its to the bad, not the good.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.



Oh yeah.....hes a record setter all right.

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘” (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Ummmm... this makes no sense in the context of 'flip flopping'.

He voted for it, the said it was 'unfunded' (no money) and had 'laudable goals' (laudable means 'praise-worthy, coming from the latin 'laudo'). So he wasn't so much 'trashing' the NCLB act as he was 'trashing' Bush's sickening approach to funding education. No money = no benefit for schools.

He's saying that *IF* Bush put any money *into* the program it would work. But he isn't, so it isn't.

I can only assume you thought 'laudable' meant something along the lines of 'laughable', since otherwise your inclusion of this under 'Kerry flip-flops' makes zero sense.

Or could it be you are just going on a rabid quoting run like so many bible-bashers tend to do? Propaganda just scares away the moderate people, you know.

You want to praise Bush for the economy? Tell that to all the people out of work.
They were the same ones who were unemployed during the prior administration. In fact, the average unemployment rate for the last 4 years is lower than it was in the 90s.

That isnt true.

Remember the huge surplus that we had right after Clintion?
That means we had more money than the budget called for.

Voodoo economics dont work.
Reagan eventually proved this, so did Bush Sr.
Dubya comes along and decides to do the very same thing?

Say whaaa?

Clinton did the opposite.
He gave the tax cuts back to the working class.
What happened?
The greatest period of economic growth in American history.

Kerry, who's economic policies are much in line with Clinton's will do the same.
What will be the result?

The working class will have more money.
So, they will spend more.
The business world benefits, and they expand, hire more people, open that second store....etc....

Why would the Conservatives hate this idea?
Becuase Kerry will take away the big tax cuts that Dubya gave them.
You're so wrong you can likely never find right again.

There is a difference between a surplus a budget and an economy.

Clinton's 'greatest economy' was no different that the economy boom of the 80s started by Reagan, except there was no dot-bombs in the 80s. The budget was different, but as stated before, there is a difference between budget and economy. (And Reagan can no more take credit for congressional spending than Clinton can)

The working class has already had two tax cuts. The lowest tax rates were cut 33%. More tax cuts are a welcome idea, so long as no economic group is excluded. I would be pleased to see them contingent upon spending cuts. (Or at least cuts in spending growth)

If conservatives are worried about losing the 'big' tax cuts that Bush gave, and if Bush gave tax cuts only to the wealthy, then about 50% of this country is wealthy - and a tax cut for 50% of the country i9s a good idea.

(Either that or you generalize too much. You decide)

Once the US and other foreign oppressors (unfortunately some German soldiers too) are out of Afghanistan, they will take matters into their own hands and make their country the way they want it to be. No foreign nation can dictate a form of government on another nation. Not even the D$A. Iraq will fail just like Afghanistan has failed. Glorifying your own deeds will not change that.
Yes, just look how bad Grenada turned out. Or Japan, Or Germany.

Yes, just look how bad Grenada turned out. Or Japan, Or Germany.
Look at what Germany or Japan was before the nazis and you will probably see that the D$A didnt have to do all that much. You fail. Please insert coin and try again.

Gee what stupid thing to shove back in your obviously mentally limited face? The thing about no presidential elections happening here in 4 years, so we must not be democratic versus no democratic elections EVER having been held in Iraq?

The fact that you can't tell the difference between the word "much" and "most?"

The fact that 12,000 killed (by both sides, discounting any non warfare casualties due to lack of water, electricity, the recent rises in disease, etc...) in one year seems pretty unsafe to me. Maybe it'll get better, but it hasn't yet.

As much as I'm tempted to, I'm not going to fall for your comparison of Bush as a Religious fanatic to the actual fanatical Islam powers that will take over if Iraq is allowed to elect their own government. Again, I point you to Iran for confirmation of what happens when a country is taken over by fundamentalist muslims.

I'm sorry, but your argument is stupid, ill-informed, and personally insulting, hence the same tone returned to you, you miserable excuse for a sentient being. Eat excrement and die, you fascist pig.

WOW.

It is so much fun to watch a liberal crack up. Once their shallow argument runs dry they resort to name calling and insults. Soon after is total melt-down.

Though I did suggest you are an 'idiot' ( you took it upon yourself to generously give the evidence) it was simply echoing the exact term you used in your prior post. If you don't like the tone, consider the one you lead with. I did suggest also that you are delusional. I stand by that-though only in the most flippant (not literal) way.

There is a saying, "never argue with an irrational person, they will lower you to their level then beat you with experience."

So, Ribaldo - you can take your insults, absolute refusal to even listen to another POV, and debate the difference between 'much' and 'most' all by yourself.

When you are more mature and ready to come to the grown-ups table, I'll be waiting. You do seem to have some potential.


Oh, and you will be pwned in any FPS (especially Renegade!) or warcraft game by me, but in a political forum using that term just makes you look even more immature and foolish.

Look at what Germany or Japan was before the nazis and you will probably see that the D$A didnt have to do all that much. You fail. Please insert coin and try again.
Please, tell me more about the Japanese Nazis!

America was never a member of nor a supporter of the world court.
Obviosly not as their judicial system is raceist, sexist, and byast.
BUSH SHOULD BE TRIED IN THE WORLD COURT!!!

Please, tell me more about the Japanese Nazis!
Correction, look at Germany before the nazis and Japan before WW2 and you will probably see that the D$A didnt have to do all that much. Germany was a democracy before the nazi dictatorship.

Obviosly not as their judicial system is raceist, sexist, and byast.
BUSH SHOULD BE TRIED IN THE WORLD COURT!!!
I agree.

Bush haters don't ever find proof or evidence of their claims, they just drop bombs, personally attack and then run away like frightened kitty cats. For shame.

Twisting and spinning. It's the new liberal lefty game in town.

Interesting... I thought that's what Bush did...

you can bet your house he would.

Why don't u ask him? i'm sure he'd put a nice right-wing spin on it for ya. Or can't you handle the truth?! He needs all that money for propaganda!

Republican Party History Lesson:

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. While the Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt tended to dominate American politics in the 1930's and 40's, for 28 of the forty years from 1952 through 1992, the White House was in Republican hands - under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Reagan and Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

From The Beginning

Abolishing slavery. Free speech. Women's suffrage. In today's stereotypes, none of these sounds like a typical Republican issue, yet they are stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early on.

Reducing the government. Streamlining the bureaucracy. Returning power to the states. These issues don't sound like they would be the promises of the party of Lincoln, the party that fought to preserve the national union, but they are, and logically so. With a core belief in the idea of the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, bloated government.

The Republican Party has always thrived on challenges and difficult positions. Its present role as leader of the revolution in which the principles of government are being re-evaluated is a role it has traditionally embraced.

At the time of its founding, the Republican Party was organized as an answer to the divided politics, political turmoil, arguments and internal division, particularly over slavery, that plagued the many existing political parties in the United States in 1854. The Free Soil Party, asserting that all men had a natural right to the soil, demanded that the government re-evaluate homesteading legislation and grant land to settlers free of charge. The Conscience Whigs, the "radical" faction of the Whig Party in the North, alienated themselves from their Southern counterparts by adopting an anti-slavery position. And the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed territories to determine whether slavery would be legalized in accordance with "popular sovereignty" and thereby nullify the principles of the Missouri Compromise, created a schism within the Democratic Party.

A staunch Anti-Nebraska Democrat, Alvan E. Bovay, like his fellow Americans, was disillusioned by this atmosphere of confusion and division. Taking advantage of the political turmoil caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bovay united discouraged members from the Free Soil Party, the Conscience Whigs and the Anti-Nebraska Democrats. Meeting in a Congregational church in Ripon, Wis., he helped establish a party that represented the interests of the North and the abolitionists by merging two fundamental issues: free land and preventing the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Realizing the new party needed a name to help unify it, Bovay decided on the term Republican because it was simple, synonymous with equality and alluded to the earlier party of Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republicans.

On July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Mich., the Republican Party formally organized itself by holding its first convention, adopting a platform and nominating a full slate of candidates for state offices. Other states soon followed, and the first Republican candidate for president, John C. Frémont, ran in 1856 with the slogan "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont."

Even though he ran on a third-party ticket, Frémont managed to capture a third of the vote, and the Republican Party began to add members throughout the land. As tensions mounted over the slavery issue, more anti-slavery Republicans began to run for office and be elected, even with the risks involved with taking this stance. Republican Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts experienced this danger firsthand. In May 1856, he delivered a passionate anti-slavery speech in which he made critical remarks about several pro-slavery senators, including Andrew F. Butler of South Carolina. Sumner infuriated Rep. Preston S. Brooks, the son of one of Butler's cousins, who felt his family honor had been insulted. Two days later, Brooks walked into the Senate and beat Sumner unconscious with a cane. This incident electrified the nation and helped to galvanize Northern opinion against the South; Southern opinion hailed Brooks as a hero. But Sumner stood by his principles, and after a three-year, painful convalescence, he returned to the Senate to continue his struggle against slavery.

Leading The Way On the Issues

Some people have argued that Republicans fought to give blacks equal rights and then the vote as a way of wresting control of the South away from the Democrats. While it is true that almost all blacks voted Republican, these were very dangerous and controversial issues at the time. For whatever reason, many Republican politicians risked their careers on that period's "third rail" of politics and managed to not only abolish slavery, but eventually even established a black's right to vote as well. In fact, many blacks even held elected office and were influential in state legislatures. And, in 1869, the first blacks entered Congress as members of the Republican Party, establishing a trend that was not broken until 1935 when the first black Democrat finally was elected to Congress.

And you think KERRY flip-flops!

It's redundant, since the Democratic party is just as corrupt.

Vote Libertarian!!

True, for all but the far lefties.

Of course not, it is so much easier for the pro-Bush crowd to dismiss such things with a wave of their hand...I imagine it helps keep them from engaging their brains

Too true! lol

Whittier, I used to think you were a socialist but I totally agree with you, Bush is a great president.

Sure... AT CREATEING A SINGLE NATION THAT CONTROLS OR INFLUENCES HALF THE WORLD OR MORE!!!

WOW! which delusion first?;

Hmm, Fallujia is to Iraq as Fresno is to California. Last I checked Fresno wasn't "most" of California. Maybe your world atlas is different than mine.

I guess since mass graves, torture, imprisonment and rape was committed by the government that means it was 'safe' in Iraq and Afganistan before their liberation? It is not 'safe' by most definition now, but it is less dangerous, a step in the right direction. (Particularly for the outspoken)

Since no presidential elections have been held in America in almost four years I guess you'd argue that there is no democracy here either. Heck, the Declaration and Constitution were all written before an election also. I guess that means that there is really not a representative government in the US at all.

Next election we'd better be careful or a radical Christian Right will take power and force the public education system to teach bible study all day, along with fundamentalism and creationsism. If only our founding fathers had spent the time to draft a bill of Rights to protect everyone. Maybe the Iraqis should try that too? What? They did? That was pretty smart.

Warlords control Afganistan? Someone oughta tell all those people registering for the elections that. Maybe Karzai should know too. I'm sure it will come as a shock.

Gee, maybe you should consider the definition of the term 'idiot' more carefully next time you look into a mirror...

Less dangerous for whom?

Less dangerous for whom?
The first group that comes to mind is the Kurds...

The first group that comes to mind is the Kurds...

Well then, let's consider journalists... Al Jazzera was bombed, Al Arabya was bombed, keep in mind these were US orcastrated attacks, unembedded (not in bed with the military) journalists were tortured and deported without probable cause, still US, a journalist, AFTER passing through a checkpoint, was fired upon by marines, need I go on?
:eek: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:]

PS u can find all this info and more in The Exeption To The Rulers by Amy Goodman with David Goodman published by Hyperion 2003

Well then, let's consider journalists... Al Jazzera was bombed, Al Arabya was bombed, keep in mind these were US orcastrated attacks, unembedded (not in bed with the military) journalists were tortured and deported without probable cause, still US, a journalist, AFTER passing through a checkpoint, was fired upon by marines, need I go on?
:eek: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:]

PS u can find all this info and more in The Exeption To The Rulers by Amy Goodman with David Goodman published by Hyperion 2003

LOL. I answered your question, with a correct answer, and you refuse to accept the fact - instead changing the subject to people who intentinally put themselves in harms way to report on it. Not even comparable.

There are people in Iraq in harms way. Police, soldiers, radicals (mostly foreigners) and those unfortunate enough to be chosen by the radicals to hide behind.

Your 'peaceful' solution seems to be to let the radicals have their way with Iraq (or to pine for when a murderer (Saddam) ran the country). I am glad you don't run the police in my town.


btw - nice emoticons!