RCT2 Questions

What does the environment have to do with 9/11 or war? Um, nothing?

The pollution you see has been around for decades, but has been largely on the decline due to our environmental laws. That should continue, seeing as how we account for fully one-third of the world's pollutants. The Bush administration has a long history now of getting regulations repealed or reduced.

Why care at all? Because we have a finite amount of natural resources and we can only junk up the place so much before it adversely affects us. Ozone depletion and increased rates of skin cancer are not a myth. It's not a conspiracy to make tree huggers happy, it's a real problem.

I guess what irritates me the most is that Bush's idea of dealing with rising gas prices is to drill in the Alaskan wildlife refuge (which if you could get all the oil in one year would account for an insignificant percentage of one year's oil use, let alone the impact it would have over the three decades it would actually take to get it all), all the while allowing a tax credit for hybrid cars to slip and renewing the tax credit loophole that qualifies SUV owners to claim the vehicles as trucks used for business. As if you need a Hummer to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice.

"renewing the tax credit loophole that qualifies SUV owners to claim the vehicles as trucks used for business. As if you need a Hummer to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice."

And would the SUV's that John Kerry, the Environmentalists favorite, fall into that category. Wait... I mean the SUV's that he uses but doesn't own... someone else in his family owns them.

---

Jeff said:
Tony Blair could be a threat

---

Of course he's a threat, have you seen the size of his ears. He can hear us typing right now, it's like britains biggest satellite dish.

SLFAKE: Dude... it's not about John Kerry. None of these guys practice what they preach. Kerry's record on the environment and energy policy is more positive, that's the point.

Walt and I were discussing on IM how people can take a "debate" in the most ridiculous of directions.

Like when everyone gets involved and it's a mass debate?

Wow, and I thought this was just an RCT2 thread ... I'm sorry I missed it to this point ...

I'm another "anyone but Bush", honestly I wish that I could vote for a Guliani-McCain ticket, I think that would bring us back and beyond the Clinton years, but that's not gonna happen until '08 or beyond, so, it's sort of a moot point.

While I don't think that the President is completely to blame for the directions of the economy (that's Greenspan more than anyone) or a slew of other things that get blamed on him, there are things that Bush has done which scare the living daylights out of me; allowing the assault weapons ban to expire, the very shady links to energy and oil industries (notice how most of the "scandals" of this Presidency, both civillian and government revolve around those two industries?), the religious aspect of *everything*, especially the ban on stem-cell research and the wasting of time and money on gay marriage. Kerry certainly can't fix all the problems, and is probably not the right man for the job, but he's not a frontman for big business and he's not a fervent-religious type who's fighting his own "holy war" and just doesn't call it that.

I'm one of those who gets their political news from Jon Stewart and Howard Stern, but I also research what I hear and don't take everything they say for face value, as they have an agenda too. I can't bring myself to support someone who won't campaign based on current topics, he makes sure that things stay focused on what happened in the 60s and 70s - like that has ANY bearing on what goes on today? How many of you older folks were "model citizens" in the 60s and 70s? At least Kerry went and fought and put his life on the line, while Bush stayed home and skipped out of duty because Daddy has money.

One of the most interesting things I've seen to date in this campaign: Jeb Bush was the one that was being groomed for the "son" Presidency but ended up with too many skeletons in his closet, so the money was thrown George's way so as not to have it go to waste. While I have nothing to firmly back that up, if you know anything about Jeb Bush, you'd realize he'd probably make a halfway decent President, and with what happened in Florida in '00, just makes ya go hmm ...

That's my political ramblings for now, thanks for reading! ;)

McCain is the man!

I'll never understand how he didn't get the nomination in 2000. Too bad he didn't flip and run with Kerry. I think that would've made the ticket a slam dunk.

I can't even watch the news right now because none of it is about the issues these guys have to take positions on. Have you noticed our discussion here hasn't mentioned anything about military records? That's because NOBODY CARES! I don't care how many purple hearts anyone has or if they had a soft job in the guard. It has nothing to do with health care, war and the environment.

In the first weeks following the DNC convention it looked like we were going to have issue campaigns, but that stopped about the time that the Swifties showed up, and it has deteriorated ever since.

But yeah, you'd be surprised at how much The Daily Show can keep you in the loop. Seeing Kerry on there was the only time he didn't seem like he had a stick up his ass. Clinton was even more impressive, as I found it remarkable how in tune he is with what's going on in the world and at home. He would've been one of our better presidents if he would've kept Baby Bill in his cradle.

You know, with non-politician governors making the scene, it's only a matter of time before one creeps into the national game.

Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor"/"Executive Orders" series anyone? ;) Well, let's hope it's not the same method of change (although something similar's already happened) but I think Washington would definitely benefit from a little less "politics" and a little more "real" people (and yes, I consider Hollywood types to be a lot more "real" than your typical politican).

Jon Stewart should run for President ;) I'd vote for him! Gotta love the guy, and gotta love the way he distills down things to what really matters. Or as he put it in his first post-9/11 broadcast - his show sits in the back of the country and throws spitballs ... but in the process provides a more truthful representation of events than any other media outlet. For my money, it didn't get any better than when he had tape of Cheney saying something, then had a tape of him vehemently denying he said it! Love it love it love it ... Guliani/McCain in '08!! (and if you listened to Howard Stern yesterday, there's reason to believe Guliani and/or Pataki are considering that ... )

---

Jeff said:
You know, with non-politician governors making the scene, it's only a matter of time before one creeps into the national game.

---

Like Ronald Reagan, perhaps?

Impule-ive said... "For my money, it didn't get any better than when he had tape of Cheney saying something, then had a tape of him vehemently denying he said it!"

Kinda like Kerry...but at least Cheney's only the #2 guy on the ticket....

Ok, but Kerry's quote wasn't about the intelligence that they presented for the case for the war - Cheney's was something he said to the effects of "we know Iraq has" such and such ties, weapons, etc. Then later, denied having ever presented that evidence in public, let alone to the President.

If Kerry's was that big a deal, it'd be called the John Kerry Show instead of the U.S. Senate (where 100 votes count)

Plus Cheney looks like a Mad Scientist, and sometimes even talks like one! (and in the case of this interview, even had an evil lair!) ;)

I've heard people say that Kerry flip flops on the issues. While it could be viewed that way, I like to think that he changed his mind and at least will admit when he was wrong.

Also, if you protest the Republican convention, you would be arrested whereas if you protest the Democratic convention, Kerry at least acknowledged that it is everyone's right to do so. (and no arrests)

I like the Daily Show too. Once, John Stewart showed a clip of Bush saying that we would not go in to Iraq and tell them how to run their country and then showed a clip that was months later where he stated the exact opposite. Talk about a flip flopper. *** Edited 9/16/2004 3:33:40 PM UTC by Dragster Freak***

Actually there were arrests of protesters in Boston...granted there were only six, but arrests were made.

The reason there were so many arrests at the RNC is because the Democrat protesters don't know how to behave. You push, punch or otherwise strike an officer who is telling you to get out of the street and stop making a nuisance, you will be arrested.

In 1986 I went to work for Eastern Airlines.
One of the first things I remember was a video
they showed us on Islamist Fundlementalist(sp?)
and they fact that they wanted to kill us for no other reason that we didn't worship their god. I would rather spend the next four years
worrying about our overly religious president
overturning Roe v. Wade than if Kerry kissing the UN's butt. If we're such a bad nation then why doesn't the UN give up that prime piece of real estate in Manhattan.

Ok, but if you're going to bring up Islamic Fundamentalists, which is a more likely target for their anger: a country led by a man who really doesn't have a religious agenda/preference, or one who is a champion of the "wrong" religion in the eyes of these people?

I think the Bush people are right, depending on which way the election goes, terror threats will increase - and I firmly believe that will be the case if Bush is re-elected ... it's gonna end up being a firey, bloody, horrifying 4 years ...

Uh, Brett, they were attacking us long before Bush came into office...the first WTC attack, the US Consulate bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, USS Cole among others...

and that all happened with Bill Clinton in office...

The issue isn't whether or not terrorists will keep at it as much as it is how the president's administration handles it. Bush had me right up through the middle of Afghanistan, and lost me thereafter.

At least Bush is doing something...unlike Clinton.

Bush might go with too much force, but that is what those Islamist Terrorists understand.

For all the fun people make of Bush; not one single terrorist attack has been made against US interests since 9/11.

Well, depends on your definition of it - in some sense, Iraq has become a constant terror attack against America. It's a heck of a lot easier (read: cheaper) to attack us in Iraq than to come all the way here and try and get through our borders. Plus since they're all in our "ally" Saudi Arabia anyway, it's an even shorter "drive".