[nredman]

Just wondering if anyone has a good website for facts on bush and kerry, where they stand on issues and such without all the spin and bs of politics. thanks guys.

[AKcrab]

Neither party tells the truth while campaigning. I don't know how one is supposed to figure out what's really going to happen when a candidate takes office.

Lies, more lies, and dirty lies. Both parties.

Maybe try here.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Neither party tells the truth while campaigning. I don't know how one is supposed to figure out what's really going to happen when a candidate takes office.

Lies, more lies, and dirty lies. Both parties.

Maybe try here.

Thanks for the link -- and I'm sure to irritate when I say that it does a great job of showing why I'm voting for Bush!



Maury

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nredman:
Just wondering if anyone has a good website for facts on bush and kerry, where they stand on issues and such without all the spin and bs of politics. thanks guys.

CBS News?

[BlueSky]

http://www.spinsanity.com/

[macvillage.net]

Ultimately, americans vote based on 2 things:

1. Political Party
2. Looks

The whole 'platform' thing generates about 1% of the vote. 95% #1, 2% #2 rest: margin of error.

States vote down the party line. The swing states are states that run 50/50. How they swing is merely based on who goes out to vote. How you get people to bother is the question.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Thanks for the link -- and I'm sure to irritate when I say that it does a great job of showing why I'm voting for Bush!

Amazing thing, this country of diverse people. The same link just confirms why I'm voting for Kerry. You wanna vote for the guy in the right column ??

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Amazing thing, this country of diverse people. The same link just confirms why I'm voting for Kerry. You wanna vote for the guy in the right column ??

Yup. Patriot act is a good thing, and let the states have their say as to how to manage their environment.

Sorta like this...

California air regulators Friday unanimously approved the world's most stringent rules to reduce auto emissions that contribute to global warming - a move that could affect car and truck buyers from coast to coast.

Under the regulations, the auto industry must cut exhaust from cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from larger trucks and sport utility vehicles by 18 percent. The industry will have until 2009 to begin introducing cleaner technology and will have until 2016 to meet the new exhaust standards.

The new standards could have a coast-to-coast effect: Because California represents 10 percent of the national auto market, the auto industry often overhauls all of its cars to meet California's standards.

Also, other states sometimes follow California's lead when it comes to adopting clean-air standards. New York has already said it would adopt the new regulations, and several other Northeastern states and Canada are expected to do the same.

The move by the California Air Resources Board came despite vigorous opposition from auto industry officials, who argued that the board did not have the authority to adopt such sweeping regulations and that they could not be met by current technology.

The industry has threatened to challenge the regulations in court. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed support for the proposals and has pledged to fight any lawsuits.

So, where's Bush "strong" opposition to this?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Maybe try here.

That link really challenges the idea that there's no difference between the parties or candidates.

[MindFad]

THE QUEERS WANNA MARRY?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Amazing thing, this country of diverse people. The same link just confirms why I'm voting for Kerry. You wanna vote for the guy in the right column ??

Maury

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MindFad:
THE QUEERS WANNA MARRY?

MindFlab post of the day. j/k

Soo�krusty. Have you�uh�read�the�uh�PATRIOT Act�uh�yeah?
Get back to me once you do.

Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick�

[icruise]

Originally posted by RAILhead:


Maury

And why would that be, exactly?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Icruise:
And why would that be, exactly?

Uhhh...that's pretty self-explanatory: I agree with his opinions 110%.

Maury

[zachs]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Uhhh...that's pretty self-explanatory: I agree with his opinions 110%.

Maury

Do you change yours when he changes his?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Uhhh...that's pretty self-explanatory: I agree with his opinions 110%.

Maury

I don't know, I sorta laughed when I saw "strongly favor" tighter immigration controls. yeah, right. Let's be honest here:
GOP wants illegals for: Work
Democrats want illegals for: Votes
I want illegals to: Get the Hell out of the country.

Alas, barely any difference there. But Work is better than votes.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zachs:
Do you change yours when he changes his?

[icruise]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Uhhh...that's pretty self-explanatory: I agree with his opinions 110%.

Maury

Uhh... I'm asking why you support those positions.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Uhh... I'm asking why you support those positions.

I think I speak for many Republicans when I say... I don't necessarily oppose those ideas... but rather recognize that what is good for Virginia may not be good for Alaska, or Pennsylvania, or Alabama.

Shouldn't we let the people from the state decide the outcome of what happens in their state?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Soo�krusty. Have you�uh�read�the�uh�PATRIOT Act�uh�yeah?
Get back to me once you do.

Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick�

OK, I'm back. Why yes, I have read it (long ago, within six months of its first passage and only the parts relating to terrorism/surveillance ... about 1 1/2 sections out of about 8.). Of course, I'm no lawyer, so interpreting in light of the real world is nearly impossible (especially since virtually all of it is presented in a very obscure "here are 4 words we are changing in this pre-existing law" sort of format without putting that change in context).
Fortunately, we have seen it in action (Oregon lawyer, Hamdi guy held in brig for 2 years before simply being released ... oops, seems like they made some mistakes).

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

I don't know, I sorta laughed when I saw "strongly favor" tighter immigration controls. yeah, right. Let's be honest here:
GOP wants illegals for: Work
Democrats want illegals for: Votes
I want illegals to: Get the Hell out of the country.

Alas, barely any difference there. But Work is better than votes.

Wow, could you link out to when they changed the law to allow *illegal* immigrants to vote? What documents do these illegals present to the voter board when they register to vote ? Guess that kills your Democrat theory. However, I think your Republican theory is spot-on. Are you sure you want illegals out ? They work for beans, don't vote, and can't register for or receive public assistance (they're Illegal, remember ?).

[Krusty]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I think I speak for many Republicans when I say... I don't necessarily oppose those ideas... but rather recognize that what is good for Virginia may not be good for Alaska, or Pennsylvania, or Alabama.

Shouldn't we let the people from the state decide the outcome of what happens in their state?

Good points but the problem with this is that what happens in one state can affect another. Near where I grew up, there was a river that was literally made yellow from the contaminants dumped into it from a paper mill. The yellow water inconveniently flowed over the border into a neighboring state (which they vociferously protested of course). So, where is the jurisdiction for resolving this issue ? At the state level ? The yellow water was apparently OK to my state (what'd they care, it flowed AWAY from them) but not to the state on the receiving end. How exactly does the receiving state go about enforcing its state's environmental regulations on the paper mill across the border (or say, the nuclear reactor across the border) ?

I'm all for individual states making more stringent laws if they want ... but there has to be a federally mandated minimum standard in there somewhere. On can recognize state-level differences without abandoning a national-level minimum standard.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Good points but the problem with this is that what happens in one state can affect another. Near where I grew up, there was a river that was literally made yellow from the contaminants dumped into it from a paper mill. The yellow water inconveniently flowed over the border into a neighboring state (which they vociferously protested of course). So, where is the jurisdiction for resolving this issue ? At the state level ? The yellow water was apparently OK to my state (what'd they care, it flowed AWAY from them) but not to the state on the receiving end. How exactly does the receiving state go about enforcing its state's environmental regulations on the paper mill across the border (or say, the nuclear reactor across the border) ?

I'm all for individual states making more stringent laws if they want ... but there has to be a federally mandated minimum standard in there somewhere. On can recognize state-level differences without abandoning a national-level minimum standard.

This is why I think that, contrary to conventional wisdom, environmentalism is perfectly consistent with libertarianism. The popular definition of libertarianism is "Do what you like as long as it doesn't injure anyone else." Well, it's a rare activity that doesn't have environmental effects and end up injuring the interests of others. Unfortunately, my impression is that most self-described Libertarians, like many conservatives, scoff at environmentalism and think of it in terms of limiting their own rights as opposed to protecting the rights of others.

[vmarks]

Not at all- Libertarians deal with conservationism and injury to environment by endeavoring to make sure that the owner of the property has the ability to seek relief in court. As in, your company pollutes my land downstream, I'm taking you to court to see that you clean it up and don't do it again. For the Libertarian, the person who is damaged should be the person made whole.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Not at all- Libertarians deal with conservationism and injury to environment by endeavoring to make sure that the owner of the property has the ability to seek relief in court. As in, your company pollutes my land downstream, I'm taking you to court to see that you clean it up and don't do it again. For the Libertarian, the person who is damaged should be the person made whole.

How is this different than federal environmental laws ?
If the general public is the damaged party (e.g. when a national forest or any publicly owned land is damaged), doesn't the EPA do essentially the same thing ? Take the damaging party to court, impose fines ("seek relief") and impose measures to make sure the offending party doesn't do it again ? I don't see what the substantive difference is except that the damaged party, in many cases, would be the Public (as represented by the Federal Gov't) when the land in question is publicly owned land.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Not at all- Libertarians deal with conservationism and injury to environment by endeavoring to make sure that the owner of the property has the ability to seek relief in court. As in, your company pollutes my land downstream, I'm taking you to court to see that you clean it up and don't do it again. For the Libertarian, the person who is damaged should be the person made whole.

If that's the official platform, it's promising, but it's impractical and overly burdensome to the injured party, who might be irreparably harmed and might not have the resources to sue, among other things. And if the party at fault isn't collectible, the injured party is never made whole. This is one area where I think government can play a legitimate role, at least in an industrialized society.

[ebuddy]

Amazing thing, this country of diverse people. The same link just confirms why I'm voting for Kerry. You wanna vote for the guy in the right column ??

Your column summarized Kerry's stance on those topics, that's too funny. Let's have another look;

Homeland Security

Patriot Act, initiated and originally drafted by Joe Lieberman
Kerry strongly opposes, then strongly favors.

Environment

Kerry platform on the environment spoken from a truly "brilliant" man; "It isn�t pollution that�s harming the environment. It�s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
His stance on ANWR is quite humorous considering his "pro-drilling" stance in the Gulf of Mexico. He's seriously irresponsible and ignorant regarding environmental policy. Case and point; there is less danger of environmental disaster in ANWR than the Gulf of Mexico, if only because oil spilled in the ocean is going to cause problems that are much more widespread than oil spilled on land, and cleanup on land is easier than in water. The main reason for opposing drilling in ANWR is that putting people and oil rigs there will disturb the wildlife, which, many Alaskans will tell you, isn't a particularly valid argument because we're talking about a tiny amount of space in a massively vast region. The problem of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that even with the best of efforts, some oil will end up in the water, where it becomes an instant problem, and if there's ever a spill, it's an environmental disaster. Add in that this is a region that regularly gets slammed by hurricanes, and there are too many risks for it to be environmentally responsible to drill in the Gulf. So, when jobs are lost because of oppressive clean-air standards more driven by anti-corporation interests than cleaner air, are you going to continue complaining about unemployment? When the cost of your lifestyle increases exponentially to afford rebuilding plants, and restructuring already sound pipelines due to the "possibility" of future problems are you going to continue complaining about the economy? You can't have it both ways. That is, unless you're Kerry.
So...Kerry strongly opposes pro-environmental policy and strongly supports pro-environmental policy.

[ebuddy]

Summary of thoughts; I guess I'd rather vote for the guy in the right column than the guy in the right and left column.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Summary of thoughts; I guess I'd rather vote for the guy in the right column than the guy in the right and left column.

lol

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Your column summarized Kerry's stance on those topics, that's too funny. Let's have another look;

Homeland Security

Patriot Act, initiated and originally drafted by Joe Lieberman
Kerry strongly opposes, then strongly favors.

Environment

Kerry platform on the environment spoken from a truly "brilliant" man; "It isn�t pollution that�s harming the environment. It�s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
His stance on ANWR is quite humorous considering his "pro-drilling" stance in the Gulf of Mexico. He's seriously irresponsible and ignorant regarding environmental policy. Case and point; there is less danger of environmental disaster in ANWR than the Gulf of Mexico, if only because oil spilled in the ocean is going to cause problems that are much more widespread than oil spilled on land, and cleanup on land is easier than in water. The main reason for opposing drilling in ANWR is that putting people and oil rigs there will disturb the wildlife, which, many Alaskans will tell you, isn't a particularly valid argument because we're talking about a tiny amount of space in a massively vast region. The problem of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that even with the best of efforts, some oil will end up in the water, where it becomes an instant problem, and if there's ever a spill, it's an environmental disaster. Add in that this is a region that regularly gets slammed by hurricanes, and there are too many risks for it to be environmentally responsible to drill in the Gulf. So, when jobs are lost because of oppressive clean-air standards more driven by anti-corporation interests than cleaner air, are you going to continue complaining about unemployment? When the cost of your lifestyle increases exponentially to afford rebuilding plants, and restructuring already sound pipelines due to the "possibility" of future problems are you going to continue complaining about the economy? You can't have it both ways. That is, unless you're Kerry.
So...Kerry strongly opposes pro-environmental policy and strongly supports pro-environmental policy.

Yeah... but... but... baby seals are cute and pelicans are ugly. Screw the GoM, the arctic critters are more specialer.


lol,

[nredman]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Neither party tells the truth while campaigning. I don't know how one is supposed to figure out what's really going to happen when a candidate takes office.

Lies, more lies, and dirty lies. Both parties.

Maybe try here.

thanks for the link and for posting something to help, unlike others.

[OSX Abuser]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Uhhh...that's pretty self-explanatory: I agree with his opinions 110%.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by OSX Abuser:

I was just about to post the same thing about all the KerryLovers!

Maury

[zachs]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I was just about to post the same thing about all the KerryLovers!

Maury

So, do you change your positions when Bush changes his?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zachs:
So, do you change your positions when Bush changes his?

Do YOU change your views when Kerry changes his?

Maury

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I was just about to post the same thing about all the KerryLovers!

Maury

I think it was just the way you put it, that you agree with absolutely everything about Bush. Come on, that can't really be true. Especially if you consider yourself a conservative, or really especially if you're a libertarian-oriented conservative. Bush is the un-libertarian.

[zachs]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Do YOU change your views when Kerry changes his?

Maury

So you won't answer. OK, then!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zachs:
So you won't answer. OK, then!

So YOU won't answer. OK, then!



Maury

[zachs]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
So you won't answer. OK, then!



Maury

Fine. My answer is that if Kerry were to change his position, I wouldn't change mine.

Now you answer.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by zachs:
Fine. My answer is that if Kerry were to change his position, I wouldn't change mine.

Now you answer.

I can agree with that.

I have my opinions and beliefs and concerns for All Things� and Bush matches my ideals more than Kerry does. Simple. My opinions are MY opinions -- it just so happens that Bush's concur with mine moreso than Kerry's.

Maury

[itai195]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
His stance on ANWR is quite humorous considering his "pro-drilling" stance in the Gulf of Mexico.

From factcheck.org:
The issue of Florida offshore drilling seems to invite distortions. Last month Jeb Bush attacked Kerry for supposedly supporting drilling off Florida's beaches. He spoke of "Kerry's insistence on offshore drilling in Florida," and said, "There is probably 10 percent of the people of this state that would support a candidate for higher office that believes what John Kerry believes."
Bush was referring to a story in the Independent Florida Alligator, a college newspaper. The story reported on a Kerry speech in Tampa and claimed that Kerry "would be in favor of drilling off the coast of Florida." What Kerry actually said was: "The largest unexplored oil field in the world is actually the deep water oil out in the Gulf. Now, there is a capacity to protect what we have today, the protections for the coast of Florida, and still be able to drill in those locations where they're already permitting, already had the Environmental Impact Study, they already have the leases . . ." (Emphasis added). The Alligator ran a correction stating "Sen. John Kerry does not support drilling for oil off the coast of Florida. Because of ambiguous language at a speech Kerry gave in Tampa on Tuesday, the Alligator reported otherwise."

Apology accepted

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by itai195:
Apology accepted

Smackdown? I'm not sure I'm authorized to issue them.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Smackdown? I'm not sure I'm authorized to issue them.

Sure you are! Requires 2000 posts or more.

[ebuddy]

"because of ambiguous statements made by Kerry." ??? no apology offered to be accepted. Still sounds to me like he's more in favor of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than in Alaska. A seriously flawed state of facts to be sure and the Environmental Impact Committee failed to address the concerns of drilling in the Gulf as well. They have not conducted ample studies regarding drilling in Alaska because of the "leases" you speak of. Sorry. no smackdown.

[itai195]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"because of ambiguous statements made by Kerry." ??? no apology offered to be accepted. Still sounds to me like he's more in favor of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than in Alaska. A seriously flawed state of facts to be sure and the Environmental Impact Committee failed to address the concerns of drilling in the Gulf as well. They have not conducted ample studies regarding drilling in Alaska because of the "leases" you speak of. Sorry. no smackdown.

You implied (as Jeb Bush did) that Kerry supported drilling right off the Florida coast. He doesn't, he supports drilling hundreds of miles off the coast, in areas that aren't controversial. You might recall that it's George W. Bush who supported drilling only 30 miles off the Florida coast until his brother protested. There's no need to conflate this issue with drilling in the ANWR, either.

[TubaMuffins]

i really like the site FactCheck. It's a good one.