[Wingnut1]

Othello, do you own a shortwave radio? If so, listen to Radio Moscow. That's how you'll know that they are very unlikely to ratify Kyoto. Their North American Service broadcasts on ten or eleven different frequencies between 6PM and 1AM daily. Quite fascinating stuff. For the record, Putin claims to be quite happy with his relationship with the US Administration, quite different from what the Manitoba Meathead would have you believe.

I'm sure that governments would eventually get around to imposing fines, such as the $1500 fine Dupont paid last November for releasing Tolulene into the air in Wilmington, Delaware. That kind of a fine is ridiculous, like fining you or me $5 for murder or armed robbery.

[Almighty1]

Fines? All these so called fines imposed on Companies are also tax deductible expenses at years end. There is some loophole that allows them to write off these fines. I'll find the source of this info and post it back a.s.a.p.

[Rev_Blair]

Look, the analysts at the EU have said that Russia is playing for a deal. Analysts at the BBC have said the same. So have analysts at the CBC. They tend to be better at figuring these things out than you are, Wing.

Don't confuse Putin and Bush's personal relationship with politics either. It is reportedly based more on their shared and extreme Christianity more than anything else. Putin has people to answer to back in Moscow though, and those people aren't so prone to kneeling on the Oval Office floor.

Putin has stood against Bush on some key issues, Iraq being the biggest one to date. If he gets what he wants from the EU, a major concern of his, he will very likely ratify Kyoto.

Oh and Wing? Cut the lies and the bullshit and all the rest okay. You've posted elsewhere how little you think of this site. Many here have seen that post. It's no secret that you hatee me in a very personal way. Perhaps you should consider taking your vitriol and hatred someplace else. I hear Haiti is looking for tourists.

[Wingnut1]

Sorry, it posted twice...

[Wingnut1]

Radio Moscow is full of shit then eh? Must be...

At any rate, I was accused in a PM of not saying what I think of Bush's policies or defending why I voted for him. So here goes...

I like the fact he nixed Kyoto and is trying very hard to work with Russia to make sure the pact dies. It is horrible stuff, does no good at all, and doesn't address the real problems.

I like the fact that he scrapped SALT II, for the previously stated reasons that the Cold War ended 15 years ago. The proliferation of nuclear arms needs to be halted or at least controlled, but the two problems aren't the USSR and the USA. One of those two entities no longer exists. Instead of dealing with a monolith like the USSR, someone it was relatively easy to watch, we are now dealing with folks like Khadafy, Kim, Musharaf and half a dozen other little tyrants who have little, if any, understanding of what they are dealing with.

I like the fact that Bush snubbed Jean Chretien and never did pay him a state visit. They met once at a border crossing near Detroit, and once or twice at a G7 summit, but never formally. Chretien was and is an idiot and never was a serious world leader. Best thing to happen to Canada in the past 50 years was the day he decided to step down.

I like the fact that Bush has stemmed the endless stream of liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench. He's had a bit of difficulty getting some of his nominees through the Senate confirmation process, but those he has managed to get through have done some good things.

I think Bush is doing a tremendous job in the war on terror and I fully support his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Whether his intel prompting his decision was good or bad, it is difficult to deny that the world is a better place without a Saddam in the mix.

There are some bad things too...such as the spending of what will turn out to be $550 billion for a prescription drug plan for seniors...one that isn't means-tested and which the beneficiaries don't even want. We can't afford this plan.

His allowing illegal aliens to stay based upon some unknown criteria is a slap in the face to everyone who is attempting to gain entry into this country legally...and don't shit yourself, there are hundreds of thousands of them. If there is ANY policy of his which is economically driven, it is this one. His constituents in Texas know that if somehow you could eliminate all the illegal aliens in this country, the Texas economy (along with that in Arizona and California) would be absolutely in the toilet.

His appointment of John Ashcroft as his attorney general sucks, to put it mildly. Fundamentalists should not be making government policy, and John Ashcroft is a fundamentalist. Certainly his right, and I don't dislike him because he is a Christian. I dislike him because he borders on fanaticism. We are fighting fanatacists in Afghanistan and Iraq...they are no better here either.

I don't much care for Richard Cheney. I believe that 99% of the intel which Bush relied upon to invade Iraq, was filtered by Cheney and I believe that any intel which didn't back up Cheney's thoughts and beliefs was discarded, never to be seen or considered by Bush. If that turns out to be correct, and I'd bet the ranch it will, Cheney should be asked for his resignation.

Those are some bad things, and in most situations, if the opposition could mount a credible alternative, my vote would go elsewhere. But...what do we have here? John Kerry who is about as two-faced as they come. John Edwards, who isn't going to overtake Kerry anyway, but is a man who advocates trimming the military even further and raising taxes even higher than they were before the Bush tax cuts. Both men think that diplomacy would have brought down Saddam, which is ludicrous. And then there's good ol' Ralph Nader, who will siphon off just enough of the lunatic fringe vote to put any Democratic candidate into the crapper anyway. So, I'll likely hold my nose and vote for Bush again. Compassionate conservatism sure looks like liberalism to me...

Satisfied Rev? Those are MY opinions. Not looking for a rebuttal from you on each of them...they stand alone as my own opinions. It's not, as you can see, devotion to some right wing radical cause which makes me support Bush. I believe that the paramount issue right now which is facing the US is national security, and I believe that if that is the case, Bush is the best choice at the present time, even with all of his shortcomings.

[Wingnut1]

Almighty1 Almighty1:

Fines? All these so called fines imposed on Companies are also tax deductible expenses at years end. There is some loophole that allows them to write off these fines. I'll find the source of this info and post it back a.s.a.p.

Yeah you are right A1, they are deductible at present. That'd have to be part of the legislation passed and enacted...to make any fines like that non-deductible. The legal fees incurred to defend oneself from those fines should also be non-deductible if you lose your case. No argument at all...

[Rev_Blair]

Radio Moscow is working under a regime that has little respect for freedom of the press, Wing.

I know you didn't want a rebuttal, but here goes...I'll keep it short because I have to head back to the studio soon.

Kyoto was the best shot at an international agreement that actually set us on the road to making things better. Bush's plan is basically a lie that promotes more irresponsibilty and more greenhouse gas. His work against in internationally is based on greed.

Bush broke Salt II so he could have more nuclear toys and begin the work of putting them in space. His policies are based on Cold War ideas, world domination, and kickbacks for his political supporters.

If anybody wants to set off a nuke in the US, it is extremely unlikely that an ICBM would be used. Even if it were, the technology Bush is promoting is highly unlikely to work. The easiest way to defeat the proposed plan is to send many nukes instead of just a few, making the world even more dangerous.

The way Bush treated Chretien was childish. It showed Bush to be one of the most petty and immature leaders the US has ever had. Comments from others in his administration about other nations show a pattern of stupidity that any intelligent American would be embarrassed by.

Judges do not write legislation from the bench. To suggest that they do is to prove a misunderstanding of the system or to be less than truthful. You pick.

Bush took the war on terror and used it to ensure money for himself and his buddies. The allies he has chosen (Karimov of Uzbekistan, for one) Show that he has no understanding of what caused the terrorism in the first place.

Iraq does not now and never did have anything to do with the war on terror. Bush went out of his to start a war that was neither needed nor a decent idea. We'll never know if Saddam could have been brought down through diplomacy because nobody ever tried. Those that wanted to try were blocked by the US.

I'm going to work now. I suggest you concentrate on the bad things before you head into the polling booth, Wing. You didn't mention all of them, but then the list is so long how could you?

Most of all I'd like you to think about your time in Vietnam though. While you were doing that, Bush was in the National Guard so he wouldn't risk getting shot at. Of course he didn't even bother to show up for the duty he was supposed to have. Then he either skipped or failed a medical, possibly due to drugs, and got grounded so the million bucks the American taxpayer spent training him was completely wasted. In the end he didn't even have the balls to skip the country, he just depended on daddy's connections to keep him out of trouble. At least it's possible to have some respect for those brave enough to move to Canada.

[Wingnut1]

I have nothing but contempt for those who went to Canada during the war. For each one who went into Canada with his tail tucked between his legs, someone else had to go. The fact that your government permitted it will always be a point of contention for me in disrespecting Ottawa, if not its people. You want to see someone who had courage in protesting the war? Take a look at Muhammed Ali. He put it all on the line, didn't run, and it nearly cost him everything.

My brother joined the National Guard to avoid Vietnam too. So what? He at least served his country for 8 years, even if it wasn't in 'nam. Those who fled to Canada, then hired shylock lawyers when Carter pardoned them if they'd agree to perform 2 years of national service, and sued saying that the 2 years of service were unfair...I would NEVER permit them back into this country under ANY circumstances. I'd sooner allow Mohammed Atta's family! If Bush avoided 'nam by joining the National Guard, so what? Compare that to Clinton's dodging of the draft altogether? Why was that ok, and Bush's service in the NG not ok? Oh gee...could it be his political party affiliation maybe? Get a life...

Bush isn't perfect. He isn't even real good. But he's a far cry better than anything running in opposition to him. I'll vote for him again, given the present opposition.

Anytime you don't think judges write legislation, you are delusional. Roe vs. Wade was not enacted by legislature, it was encoded by the Supreme Court. Forced bussing was not enacted by any legislature, it was mandated by a Federal judge. Bastardizing the Constution which guarantees freedom OF religion, by making it mean freedom FROM religion was not enacted by any legislature, it was and is being mandated by the judiciary. Give your head a shake man...

[figfarmer]

It's pretty evident that the brightest and best realised the idiocity of the war in Nam and came to Canada.

[Wingnut1]

No, they were fucking cowards, and if you like having them in your midst, be my guest. Sure the war was wrong...in hindsight. But a lot of people went and did what they had to do. Wonder how many thought that WW2 was wrong too, or what mighta happened if a few of them crossed into Canada to avoid that one? Screw 'em...let 'em stay in Canada and breed more cowards!

[AdamNF]

Im sorry but running to the National Guard to avoid service Vietnam or any war for that matter is no diffrent then running to Canada. People juin the guard in wartime to avoid having to acualy go to war. Its the same thing as running away.

[karra]

Call it whatever you like.

Fact of the matter is, their country called and they were absent.

[Mukluk]

karra karra:

Call it whatever you like.

Fact of the matter is, their country called and they were absent.

I hardly call a handful of oil hungry men "their country".

m

[Rev_Blair]

Wing wrote:

$1:

Anytime you don't think judges write legislation, you are delusional. Roe vs. Wade was not enacted by legislature, it was encoded by the Supreme Court. Forced bussing was not enacted by any legislature, it was mandated by a Federal judge. Bastardizing the Constution which guarantees freedom OF religion, by making it mean freedom FROM religion was not enacted by any legislature, it was and is being mandated by the judiciary. Give your head a shake man...

Roe vs. Wade is a ruling on a woman's right to choose based on your constitution and case law. It is not a law, but a ruling based on laws. It did strike down other laws because they were found to be illegal. See the difference there, Wing...it is not a law, it is the enforcement of a law. Same with bussing.

The freedom of/freedom from religion argument is stupid. It is nothing but an attempt to force your Christian beliefs on others. While your president works to have creation "theory" given as an alternative in your national parks and tries to turn the Washington Monument into an icon of his sweet, white Jesus, maybe you should think about that.

[Wingnut1]

The founders never intended the United States to be free from religion Blair. I don't need to listen to your interpretation of things...written, plain English is easy enough for the average person to understand. In fact, this entire nation is here only because men and women of religious principle decided that they weren't interested in following the tenets strictly of the Church of England. Federal judges---LIBERAL Federal judges---have decided, completely on their own that they would alter the intent of the founders to turn this country into an areligious nation. Once that happened morals began to decline, honesty became a thing of the past, crime soared and respect for established authority disappeared. Anarchists love that situation. Civilized human beings find it disgusting. Nobody has ever forced you, other than your parents perhaps, to accept or believe anything. If George Bush cites scripture in a speech, it does nothing to force you to believe in that verse or anything else. Your premise that it could is simply stupid.

Federal judges most certainly DO misinterpret laws to suit themselves. With the appointments being made by the two Bushes and Reagan, some of that is beginning to disappear. It should. It is wrong.