RNC Yea Baby!

[str8h8]

Sorry about that, I just love watching you Ultra conservative types getting on your ear.

A man I respect, a man with a Doctorate in Philosphy, from Penn (not Penn State mind you, Penn, we're talking Ivy League here) once told me that the only difference between politics and wrasslin is that you meet nicer people.....

in Wrasslin.

If you're speaking of David Parry (whom I also respect) his PhD is from Penn State. His Bachelors and Masters degree studies were at UPenn, though.

[FatVin]

You're right but that's still pretty friggin smart,

oh and by the way I don't care liberal or conservative you are, the Bush Twins are WAY hotter, c'mon

[bassist_25]

Yes, there are a few out there, but you won't find many everyday conservatives (real ones) engaging in that behavior.

When it comes to liberals, it seems the entire rank and file of the left wing "Bush-haters" all belch out the same slanderous sound bites over and over. I see it on this board. I hear it at gigs. I hear it in bars. I hear it in our machine shop. I'm starting to hear it in my sleep...

Well, I think people do have legitimate reasons for why they dislike Bush. If we were to use RP for example, you're the only Bush supporter who's actually tried to present a rational argument on why you think Bush should be our president. I know that grimmbass, torn&frayed, Killyourscene, and myself have presented congent points on why we believe Bush shouldn't be president.

I agree, there are some people who blindly hate Bush. (and some of it borders on irrational animosity!!) You're always going to get some yellow dog Dems who would vote for a half a case of Smirnoff just so they're not voting Republican. (I love Smirnoff though, so I guess I wouldn't mind ) Likewise, you're going to get people who always vote Republican because, that's the party that "lowers taxes". (I'm all for lowering taxes; that's one thing that Bush did that I do approve of - lowered the captial gains tax. But I think some people would vote for Hitler himself as long as he said the words, "lower taxes".)

I'm anti-Bush, but I'm not pro-Kerry. I'll probaly be voting for Nader (is he even on the ballot in PA?), but I can't help but feel that I'm throwing my vote away.

When I venture to ask one of these ranting ravers what their stance is on a particular issue, they generally don't have one. In contrast, if you ask a conservative, you better have a lot of time on your hands.

Again, I disagree. Many of the conservatives I come across in my travels, do not want to talk politics. A recent example would be from yesterday - my composition teacher came into class and told a story about the Kerry/Edwards sticker on her folder. One of her office mates saw it and commented, "I'm pro-Bush, I'm pro-war, and we will not talk politics!!!" Most of the arguments for the war in Iraq have been non-sequiturs. (Don't get me wrong, I've heard a few good arguments for it, but not many) Coulter's propaganda may be rooted a little more in objective fact than Michael Moore's, but it still stands that she has an agenda of pushing McCarthyist and Zionist ideals onto the American people. And that's one agenda I'm going to fight, tooth and nail.

Of course, there's a lot of people on the intellectual right that I do admire (David Horowitz, Tucker Carlson, ect.), but all of the hate speech coming from Limbaugh, Savage, North, and Drudge seems to drown out the rational people.

Its close, but I vote for the Bush girls, although the Kerry girls look pretty good in spite of their dad.

I would like to put a write-in for Hillary Duff.

Paul, you are the exception to the rule, although I don't consider you a liberal in the 1st place.

Yeah, if you were to throw me in a category, I guess I would be a moderate libertarian. (Which means, I find some serious flaws in Nozick's philosophy and the Libertarian platform; I think some things cannot be privitizied; and some socialist programs are not only beneficial, but necessary.) Like I mentioned in another thread, I would probaly be a card-carrying Natural Law member if that party had not disbanded.

[lonewolf]

Here's an interesting quote:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Ben Franklin

[BDR]

I ... like ... beans ...

r:>)

[bassist_25]

So what do you all think of Alter Bridge? Tremonti plays some mean licks!

I've only heard the single, and I like it a lot. I think their new singer blows Stapp out of the water.

Rob, I haven't had beans in a while, but after I came home from practice last night, I made some chicken wraps. (The chicken was cooked in a George Foreman Grill, none the less)

[J Michaels]

Ya know what - I apologize for my earlier post. It was inappropriate to use the tone that I did, but I have become so incredibly frustrated listening to BOTH sides and the way these debates go. As someone else said, I am NOT pro-Kerry, nor am I particularly "liberal", but I am MOST DEFINTIELY anti-Bush.

1) Anyone who appoints a former anti-environmental law attorney as Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton) does NOT understand the purpose of that position.

2) Anyone who appoints then continues to support a man who compares teachers and their union to terrorists as the Secretary of Education does not understand the purpose of that position. As a former high school teacher, I am particularly offended by this.

3) Anyone who is asked about angering other countries by our military action in Iraq, and possibly inciting further terrorist sentiment and actions against our nation, and then responds "Bring 'em on!" does NOT understand leadership, diplomacy, or the awesome responsibility of being Commander in Chief of the greatest fighting force in the world.

4) Anyone who went to an Ivy League school only because of who their daddy is, then rails against "special treatment" for certain applicants does not understand social justice. Or maybe they do, and they prefer to deny it in order to maintain the status quo of privilege for the rich (read "wealthy whites.") As an applicant in the top 2% of his HS class and in the 99th percentile on both the ACT and SAT tests, AND a 3-sport athlete, who was denied admission to an Ivy League school, I am also particularly offended by this.

And please stop citing the account of Kerry's service that was presented in the "Veterans for America" commercial (or whatever the name of the group sponsoring tha ad was called.) The fact is that the Bush administration did not sponsor it, nor have they either publicly endorsed, agreed with, or otherwise supported those statements. What does THAT tell you about the validity of the account?

I am so bewildered that the Republicans would nominate a man like Duh-bya, and that he would become president without actually being elected, and that the best the Democrats could come up with in 2000 was Gore, and in 2004 Kerry, that I am beginning to lose hope in this country's future. Seriously.

Anyway, I will refrain from the name-calling - I usually don't stoop to that kind of thing, but I guess I lost my cool a bit. My bad.

[lonewolf]

EDITED FOR CLARITY

Paul, we are in very different environments and will run into very different people. You are still in the left-leaning ivory tower and I'm in the post-ivory tower world. I spent 12 years in the ivory tower as either a student or employee (or both), during 4 different decades (70s,80s,90s,00s). The liberal minded there are generally well educated, thoughtful people. My favorite discussion there was with the wife of a professor who also happens to be State College council president. Her view was that all parents are irresponsible and that the state should raise all children. Out here, my experience with political discussions has involved these people:

liberal, left, or democrat:

1. march-in-lockstep union workers
2. drunk march-in-lockstep union workers from other shops
3. offspring from march-in-lockstep union workers
4. representatives from gender numbers 3, 4 and 5. I still don't have a handle on that yet. I think they're working on 6 now.
5. uneducated rebels without a clue.
6. irresponsible parents.

conservative, right or republican:

1. professionals, especially engineers.
2. business owners
3. stock and real estate brokers.
4. motorcycle enthusiasts
5. responsible parents.

[lonewolf]

1) Anyone who appoints a former anti-environmental law attorney as Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton) does NOT understand the purpose of that position.

Huh?

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton
www.doi.gov

Gale Norton, a lifelong conservationist, public servant and advocate for bringing common sense solutions to environmental policy, was sworn in as the 48th Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior in January 2001. The first woman to head the 153-year-old department, Norton has made what she calls the Four C's the cornerstone of her tenure: Consultation, Communication, and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. At the heart of the Four C's is the belief that for conservation to be successful, the government must involve the people who live and work on the land.

To implement the Four C's approach, Norton has reached out to states, tribes, local communities, businesses, conservation organizations, and private citizens in a variety of ways, including:

New Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grant programs, providing cost-share grants to states and landowners for wildlife conservation;
The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, a proposal for cost-share grants to empower states and local landowners to engage in conservation projects on public and private lands;
Strong support of the bipartisan plan to restore the Florida Everglades;
Reduction of long-standing maintenance backlogs on the National Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System, including a proposed record budget increase for the refuge system;
Support for environmentally sensitive energy production on public lands, including renewable sources such as geothermal, wind, biomass and solar.
Norton has made building cooperation and consensus the focus of her nearly 25-year career. From 1991 to 1999, she served as Attorney General of Colorado. In that capacity, she represented virtually every agency of the Colorado state government. She argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts and testified numerous times before congressional committees. As a negotiator of the $206 billion national tobacco settlement, Norton represented Colorado and 45 other states as part of the largest lawsuit settlement in history.

Prior to her election as Attorney General, Norton served in Washington, D.C. as Associate Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, overseeing endangered species and public lands legal issues for the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. She also worked as Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and, from 1979 to 1983, as a Senior Attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Norton graduated magna cum laude from the University of Denver in 1975 and earned her law degree with honors from the same university in 1978. Before becoming Interior Secretary, Norton was senior counsel at Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C. She and her husband, John Hughes, are avid hikers and outdoor enthusiasts. They reside near Washington, D.C.

If she's not qualified, who is?

[oobie]

just a thought: UNIONS are what keep this counrty going CORRECT?!!!!

thought so!!

[bassist_25]

Paul, we are in very different environments and will run into very different people. You are still in the left-leaning ivory tower and I'm in the post-ivory tower world. I spent 12 years in the ivory tower as either a student or employee (or both), during 4 different decades (70s,80s,90s,00s). The liberal minded there are generally well educated, thoughtful people...Out here:

Actually, I started school on Monday, so I've been out in the real world for about four years. I knew that many of my professors and peers were going to lean to the left on many issues. (College is the stereotypical left-wing place.) I do find that conveservative students are usually more learned on their views than their liberal counterparts. I seem to find the opposite while I'm out in the real world.

I live in a rural place that is rather conservative. Ironically though, our house rep is a Democrat. (Camille George)

I'm also a small business owner, and that puts me in a very strange situation when it comes to my fiscal views. On one hand, I support many conservative tax breaks, but on the other hand, I don't support the globalization policies that come with it; not only do these policies exploit the poor conditions of third world countries, it's already giving the corporations an upper hand over me before I can even compete in the market. I'm definatley with the Greens on many issues when it comes to corporate policy. I just think that it's appalling that whenever someone wants to stand up for the working man, or criticizes large corporations, they are branded as a communist by the rich and elite right.

[J Michaels]

Huh?

Dude, c'mon - you take her bio from the Dept of Interior website? Do you really think they are going to cite the cases where she argued for Corporations in order to exonerate them from violating EPA standards?

No time at the moment (headed to a gig), but I will post some more useful info later.

[homerski]

I am neither a democrat nor republican, but I will definitely vote for George Bush.

Why, because his decisions and approach to dealing with thugs and terrorists are exactly the ones I would have made if I were in his shoes.

Is he perfect? Of course not.. But there is one thing that he is NOT..

He is NOT a PUSSY !!

Go George !!!

[J Michaels]

No time at the moment (headed to a gig), but I will post some more useful info later.

To wit, from the LA Times, January 9, 2001

Gale Norton Is No James Watt;
She's Even Worse
by Doug Kendall

Although she's earned such colorful epithets as "James Watt in a skirt," amusing labels can't fully capture why Gale Norton, newly nominated as secretary of Interior, is unfit to be entrusted with our national parks, monuments and other public treasures. As her record as a lawyer espousing the rights of polluters and corporate interests shows, Norton's only qualifications for the job of Interior secretary should be disqualifications.
Norton began her career litigating on behalf of cattlemen, miners and oil companies at James Watt's Mountain States Legal Foundation. She followed Watt to the Department of Interior, where she advocated policies such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. In the late 1980s, at the conservative Pacific Research Institute, she helped plan litigation strategy to enhance individual property rights at the expense of community interests. As Colorado's attorney general, Norton implemented a "self-auditing" procedure that allows polluters to evade environmental fines and promoted legislation that would have enshrined an extreme view of the "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Norton's absolutist views on property rights and her hostility to environmental protections place her far outside the mainstream of even conservative legal scholarship on these issues. Specifically, Norton promotes a radical interpretation, advanced by University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein, of the U.S. Constitution's "takings clause," which bars government confiscation of private property without compensation. Epstein has argued that the takings clause "invalidates much of the 20th century legislation" by requiring compensation for any government interference with property rights "no matter how small the alteration and no matter how general its application."

Norton has actually chided the Rehnquist Supreme Court for interpreting the clause in a manner that "falls short of the role discussed by Richard Epstein." Norton further advocates an affirmative "right to build on one's property" and suggests, remarkably, that "we might even go so far as to recognize a homesteading right to pollute or make noise in an area."

Adoption of Norton's agenda would mean one of two things: Either the government would have to pay polluters not to pollute, and thus the Bush administration would have to set up a corporate welfare program so large that it would make a farm bureau lobbyist blush, or it would have to repeal most of our health, safety and environmental laws. The second alternative is the one Norton clearly prefers. She notes: "If the government must pay compensation when its actions interfere with property rights, then its regulatory actions must be limited." She views this "chilling effect on regulation" to be "something positive."

But long-standing court interpretations of the takings clause already offer important protections for property rights, and this country has also been governed by the competing notion that individual property rights cannot run roughshod over neighbors' rights or the community interest. That's why we have laws to minimize the effects of pollution on residential areas, keep adult bookstores away from schools, and maintain parks and wilderness areas for recreation. Norton's extreme property rights agenda would undermine this careful balance.

The Interior Department's primary mission is to manage nearly 500 million acres of the public domain, including our national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. These lands are beset by pollution, eroded by a maintenance backlog and under encroachment from development. They already are encumbered with stale, frivolous or otherwise defective claims of property interests asserted by timber, oil and gas, mining and grazing lobbyists.

Interior also administers the Endangered Species Act and thus is entrusted to protect our wildlife and plants. A critical component of the act ensures that habitat modifications on private lands do not harm protected species. Given Norton's extreme views on property rights, landowners are sure to assert to the department that "Secretary Norton believes what you are doing is unconstitutional."

Finally, Interior is charged with holding polluters responsible when they harm publicly held natural resources. It is difficult to imagine Norton, with her antipathy to regulatory solutions and her advocacy of a "right to pollute," warming to this responsibility.

No choice for Interior secretary could have been more likely to divide and less likely to unite than Gale Norton. By nominating her, Bush has rewarded the corporate contributors who underwrote his White House run, but he risks alienating the vast majority of Americans who support strong environmental laws and protection of our public land.

Indeed, the more you learn about Norton, the more the label "James Watt in a skirt" seems unfair to Watt.

[J Michaels]

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet ... norton.asp

Gale Norton’s confirmation as interior secretary, a position in charge of national parks and the nation’s public lands, was a huge disappointment to many environmentalists. The activists had played up Norton’s connections to non-environmentally friendly industries, pointing out that as a lawyer for Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, Norton had represented Delta Petroleum and lobbied for NL Industries, which was defending itself in lawsuits over children’s exposure to lead paint. But it was what Norton did in her down time that really aggravated the environmentalists. She was national chairwoman of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates, a group funded by, among others, Ford Motor Company and oil giant BP Amoco (check out the company's three PACs here, here and here). While acting as Colorado’s attorney general, Norton also ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996.

[J Michaels]

From the DoI website:

"We take seriously our awesome responsibilities to the American public:

The Department manages one of every five acres of land in the United States, providing opportunities for wilderness, wildlife protection, recreation, and resource development;
We supply water for much of the West so that farmers can grow food and people can turn on their taps;
We provide access to energy and minerals so that people can warm and cool their homes, and drive to their jobs;
We honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island communities; and
We protect wildlife and improve the environment. "

To do this, Norton has filled the DoI with others like her. Click here to read more about the people "protecting our wildlife" and "improving our environment": http://www.stopnorton.org/nortoncompany.pdf

[J Michaels]

Want more reasons to NOT vote for Bush? How about the explosion in defense spending that has magnified our national debt and thrown us back into the unbridled deficit spending of the 80s? According to cnn.com, "The $455 billion deficit in 2003 was a record in sheer dollar terms...." And yet Republicans love to call Democrats "tax and spenders". It seems to me that the spenders are Republicans, or at least that they are as bad as Democrats.

How about the blatant misuse, misrepresentation, or the outright ignoring of SCIENTIFIC DATA AND RESEARCH, which has become so flagrant, so egregious, and so far reaching that entire segments of the scientific community are forming their own special interest groups calling attention to it. Legislators are well-known to not exactly base policy decisions on all the facts, but only those that serve the position they want to endorse, but it has reached levels of absolute absurdity and offensiveness under Duhhhhh-bya.

[tornandfrayed]

and why do you libs, when you don't have a fact to stand on always resort to name-calling?

Because we are "Libs" , not a name right? Should we call you "Pubs" or "Reps"? Neither of those would be names right?

If you are going to ask about resorting to name calling your comment will carry more weight if you are able to refrain from name calling your self. At least in the same post...

[tornandfrayed]

usually from the left, I frequently have contact with:

1. march-in-lockstep union workers
2. drunk march-in-lockstep union workers from other shops
3. offspring from march-in-lockstep union workers
4. representatives from gender numbers 3, 4 and 5. I still don't have a handle on that yet.
5. uneducated rebels without a clue.
6. irresponsible parents.

Usually from the right, I frequently have contact with:

1. engineers and other professionals.
2. business owners
3. stock and real estate brokers.
4. motorcycle enthusiasts (nice term, eh? try it sometime. lol)
5. responsible parents.

Come on Jeff! You have got to be kidding! Are you insinuating that left thinking people are irresponsible parents? Or that Bikers are responsible parents? Or that union workers are drunks?Or that business owners cannot be rebels? Or that Union Workers are left wing? And Drunk?

I really think you are secluding your self a bit too much!

The above comment would lead people to believe that you think anyone of any worth is a right wing type of person and anyone to the left is not. Is this some type of bias on your part? I mean to try to catagorize and stereotype like that is interesting.

Rockpage and the beliefs and commenst posted here never ceases to amaze me!

And thank you for making my points better then I ever could!

Your world must be bizarre!

[byndrsn]

and why do you libs, when you don't have a fact to stand on always resort to name-calling?

Because we are "Libs" , not a name right? Should we call you "Pubs" or "Reps"? Neither of those would be names right?

If you are going to ask about resorting to name calling your comment will carry more weight if you are able to refrain from name calling your self. At least in the same post...

Ya know, if you were to use slang to call me a conservative - I wouldn't be insulted - hell, I would be proud of it, because I am proud to be a conservative.

I just don't understand why liberals are always insulted when they are called a liberal?

[lonewolf]

Come on Jeff! You have got to be kidding! Are you insinuating that left thinking people are irresponsible parents? Or that Bikers are responsible parents? Or that union workers are drunks?Or that business owners cannot be rebels? Or that Union Workers are left wing? And Drunk?

Huh? Bikers are responsible parents? union workers are drunks? Where'd you get that?

I think you took that backwards, Dave, like vice versa. Maybe this makes more sense. In the political discussions I've had with people, the left-leaners have generally (did I say generally, like usually?) been from the 1st list. The conservative have generally (oops there's that word again) been from the 2nd list. This has been my experience, not my opinion. The drunken union worker scenario has actually come up quite often. Of course, they'd probably categorize me as drunken management.

Yes, it must be a bizarre world I live in where there are strange things like management and labor and bikers and parents and engineers and professionals and business owners and... C'mon Jeff? No. C'mon Dave!

By the way, after 70 years of failed social program experiments, it is we conservatives who are now the rebels.

[lonewolf]

Should we call you "Pubs" or "Reps"?

My favorite one is Repukes