View Full Version : Going Nuclear?
Will the Dems filibuster "ScAlito's" nomination? Will the far right go "Nuclear" in response? Will it result in "tribal warfare" in congress?
Libby, Rove, Cheney...DeLay, Frist, Abramson...is Howard Dean right in calling for an end to the "culture of corruption" pervading congress and our current administration?
I'm tired of abortion, religion, and gay rights dominating people's agenda. I think our national deficit is obscene and we have a non-existant energy policy. I'm embarassed that we refuse to admit greenhouse gasses are affecting weather patterns...ignoring 90% of scientists and the most of the rest of the modern world. Medicaid and Social Security threaten to double or even triple our current deficit. Will these issues be left to the next administration to try and solve? Will our kids, and theirs, be saddled with a trillion dollar debt?
Were we intentionally mislead about WMD's and Saddam's link to 9/11? Did we have any idea or plan regarding what it would take to "succeed" in an occupied Iraq?
In my opinion these are the issues that need to be addressed. Our leaders are currently working hard to cover their arses, stubbornly clinging to far right idealogies that do not appear to be working very well.
Popcorn, anyone?
Schnook
11-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Tony,I'll start my reply by saying that our current administration hasn't always handled situations in the most adept manner. I also agree that Congress has rendered itself largely ineffective through political infighting and catering to special interests, but that blame goes to both sides of the aisle. I agree with the spirit of your post, but the substance is a bit suspect:
- I don't agree with the far left's use of the filibuster. It appears to be sabatoging the system if it doesn't work for you. This leads to-
- Libby, Rove, Cheney, Delay, Frist, Abramson. We've heard these names over and over as the left has resorted to throwing you-know-what against the wall to see what sticks. Since the dems can't get it done at the polls, they seem bent on doing whatever they can to derail the country to make the GOP look bad.
- Looking to Howard Dean for guidance on anything is a shaky bet at best. On the campaign trail he proved himself more than a bit unstable, and it's easy to throw stones at a glass house when you're stuck outside.
- Our national deficit is obscene, but before you lay this solely at the feet of the current administration, consider this: The former administration basked in the warmth of low deficits that were a direct result of the peak of a 20 year bull market, then stood idly by while corrupt corporations transformed that market into a bubble that burst, sending our economy into a tailspin. This was compounded by the trauma of 9-11, the last of a string of 8 major attacks (WTC in 92, Kenyan Embassy, USS Stark, etc) against American interests by foreign terrorists who were well known to that previous administration, yet nothing was done. Would we have to be in Iraq or Afghanistan now had decisive action been taken then?
- This administration has not refused to admit there is a problem with greenhouse gasses. It has refused to agree to a treaty that would effectively cripple our economy, while allowing 'developing economies' to continue polluting with no restrictions or consequences.
- Medicaid and Social Security are problems that must be dealt with. Every administration for the past 45 years has known this, no one wants to touch that third rail, and yes, our kids and theirs will be saddled with a tremendous debt, the drastic measures required to avoid that would never be acceptable to the general public (see the third rail comment).
- One would have to be extraordinarily naiive to believe that our distinguished representatives and senators were mislead concerning Iraq and WMD. Both parties share seats on every committee, including intelligence, and have access to the exact same information the president does. If it were a popular war, they'd all be clamoring for their share of credit. I agree all these issues need to be addressed, but let's at least be fair about it - in my opinion no one in Washington is blameless.
Thanks for the popcorn, pass the salt!
dfunde01
11-02-2005, 05:38 AM
Tony,
Don't tell me what you believe about global warming, give me some science. Please reference one paper by a credible expert that supports that global warming is caused by humans greenhouse gases rather than part of a natural cycle.
Dave
rayjay
11-02-2005, 06:06 AM
Tony,
Don't tell me what you believe about global warming, give me some science. Please reference one paper by a credible expert that supports that global warming is caused by humans greenhouse gases rather than part of a natural cycle.
Dave
Dave, you're asking the "hot" question. Talk of global warning and greenhouse gases started a long time ago and have the scientific community solidly behind both sides of the debate.
There is an old adage in Geology, or at least was told to me by the Prof in Geology 101, "Whatever has happened, can happen." with a corollary, "If it can happen it probably already has.". The earth has gotten warmer and colder to incredible extremes for millions of years. To put it plainly, we have been in a warming cycle since the last Ice Age. The question is if what we are spewing out is causing the warming to happen a faster rate, not if we are causing the warming. And the answer has to be that we do not know the answer. We do know the earth has at times experienced changes to extreme warm or cold at incredibly fast (by Geologic or any standard) rates, but is this rate any faster than what has happened.
I have MD friends who do research in Oncology who tell me that if the FDA tested milk in today's climate of reprisal they would probably ban it. Also the greatest air polluters are not the cars, but the bovine passing gas. I'm not advocating we should add to the problem, I am completely against waste and for respecting the world we live in. I just think we have to put things into perspective and look at the motives of the experts, and the people who quote the experts.
I now pass the soapbox...
rayjay
Carl C
11-02-2005, 06:18 AM
Tony,
Don't tell me what you believe about global warming, give me some science. Please reference one paper by a credible expert that supports that global warming is caused by humans greenhouse gases rather than part of a natural cycle.
DaveYou are right on! 50 years ago the fear was of a new ice age. To enter into this global warming nonsense would only cost this country billions of dollars with ZERO results! Climate does indeed go through natural cycles. Besides, up here in Michigan I could go for a little global warming.:yes:
gcarter
11-02-2005, 06:40 AM
Carl, you're right!!
Look at this from the New York Times. The immediate assertion is that "WE" can do something about it (paragraph 3). Even if this were true, you would have to include China and India, the two largest poluters of all, which the Kioto treaty ignores.
November 1, 2005
New Study Warns of Total Loss of Arctic Tundra
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
If emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at the current rate, there may be many centuries of warming and a near-total loss of Arctic tundra, according to a new climate study.
Over all, the world would experience profound transformations, some potentially beneficial but many disruptive, and all at a pace rarely seen in nature, said the authors of the study, being published today in The Journal of Climate.
"The question is no longer whether we will need to address this problem, but when we will need to address the problem," said Kenneth Caldeira, an author of the study and a climate expert at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, based at Stanford University.
"We can either address it now, before we severely and irreversibly damage our climate, or we can wait until irreversible damage manifests itself strongly," Dr. Caldeira said. "If all we do is try to adapt, things will get worse and worse."
The paper's lead author, Bala Govindasamy of the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said it might take 20 or 30 years before the scope of the human-caused changes becomes evident, but from then on there is likely to be no debate.
The researchers ran a computer model that simulates both the climate system and the flow of heat-trapping carbon into the air in the form of carbon dioxide, then back into soils and the ocean.
Most simulations of the potential human impact on climate have been confined to studying the next 100 years or so, but in this case the scientists started the calculations in 1870 and let the computers churn away through 2300.
The authors stressed that the uncertainties were high over such a time span, and said the study was intended to illustrate broad consequences rather than project specific ones.
They programmed the model to run as if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rose about 0.45 percent a year through 2300. That is slightly less than the current rate, about 0.5 percent.
In the simulation, the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles from pre-industrial levels in 2070, triples in 2120, and quadruples in 2160.
The results are sobering, Dr. Caldeira and other climate experts said, because the computer model used in this study tends to produce less warming from a greenhouse-gas buildup than many of the other climate simulations being run by other research teams.
It also presumes that plants and the ocean will continue to sop up carbon dioxide in the future, limiting the amount retained in the atmosphere. Many other independently developed models calculate that at some point, chemical and biological shifts caused by warming would reverse that flow and cause even more greenhouse gases to flood into the atmosphere.
Consistent with many other studies, the model showed that the Arctic would see the most warming, with average annual temperatures in many parts of Arctic Russia and northern North America rising more than 25 degrees Fahrenheit around 2100.
Antarctica would follow suit later, with temperatures there rising sharply around 2200.
The impact on vegetation and landscapes would transform large areas of the earth.
In the simulation, at least one ecosystem, the scrubby Arctic tundra largely vanishes as climate zones shift hundreds of miles north. Tundra would decline from about 8 percent of the world's land area to 1.8 percent.
Alaska, in the model, loses almost all of its evergreen boreal forests and becomes a largely temperate state.
But vast stretches of land that were once locked beneath permanent ice cover would open up. The area locked beneath ice would diminish to 4.8 percent of the planet's total land area, from 13.3 percent.
Several climate scientists not associated with the study said its main benefit was akin to the murky visions of possible futures experienced by Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol."
"It's a cautionary tale," said Gerald A. Meehl, a climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who has conducted similar studies.
"The message is not to give up because the changes appear overwhelming, but instead the message should be the longer we wait to do something, the worse the consequences."
This is taken from the EPA's global warming site:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
Like many fields of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of global warming. This does not imply that all things are equally uncertain. Some aspects of the science are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends, while other aspects range from 'near certainty' to 'big unknowns.'
What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.
Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.
As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."
Ton DeLay is, literally, a scary man. Many of his colleagues, when asked about him, insist on anonymity for fear of reprisal. His well-known nickname is "The Hammer" due to the immense power he wields. Much of it derived, of course, from trading money (ill-gotten) and favors for votes...which is what he has been indicted for.
He once said tht the democratic party was made up of "Greenpeace, the queer nation, and the NEA". He also blames school shootings like Columbine on "day care, teen pregnancy, and the teaching of evolution". In his office are stone tablets of the ten commandments and a collection of bullwhips.
While I have no problem with a moderate republican viewpoint, it is scary to me that the evangelical far right (DeLay and others like him) have almost taken over the hill!
txtaz
11-02-2005, 08:09 AM
Ton DeLay is, literally, a scary man.
In his office are stone tablets of the ten commandments and a collection of bullwhips.
Uh, we live in Texas and many people here have ranches with cattle on them. That's what the bull whips are used for, NOT whipping liberals who support gay rights, getting rid of GOD and Christmas and the Ten Commandments (although not a bad idea). So please do not put a spin on things on which you have no cultural understanding.
Liberals, I swear..."It depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is", Let's not forget the famous 8 years with "The Bill". We are cleaning up his mess now and doing a pretty darn good job of it.
Da Taz <<<--- Yeah, Rep Power doesn't stand for Republican either
Schnook
11-02-2005, 08:54 AM
Taz, I just wanted to verify that you meant whipping liberals was not a bad idea. Did you ever notice that you never see Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi at the same time? Ever put their pictures side by side? Hmmm.
txtaz
11-02-2005, 09:22 AM
So you are saying if Nancy Pelosi got bull wipped, Howard Dean would show up with welts? NOW that is funny....
Da Taz who is keeping my Christmas
gcarter
11-02-2005, 01:07 PM
My appologies to anyone in education, but I have a problem with the NEA.....
In my mind, it's the closest thing to a union running a corporation I can think of!!!:bonk:
I think it's a real conflict of interest!!!
gold-n-rod
11-02-2005, 02:40 PM
My appologies to anyone in education, but I have a problem with the NEA.....
In my mind, it's the closest thing to a union running a corporation I can think of!!!:bonk:
I think it's a real conflict of interest!!!
Tonite, when I'm discussing the flatness of the earth with my wife, an NEA member, I'll be sure to pass along your warm regards, George!!!! :wavey:
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the NEA?
gold-n-rod
11-02-2005, 03:29 PM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the NEA?
http://www.nea.org/index.html
Joe I had no idea either this is how Google posts it.
NEA: National Education Association Home Page
United States labor union committed to advancing the cause of public education. NEA represents teachers, secretaries and educational support personnel ...
www.nea.org/ - 39k - Oct 31, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
NEA Members & Educators Home Page - Issues in Education
Help for Parents - NEA - Student Program - Membership
More results from www.nea.org »
Uh, we live in Texas and many people here have ranches with cattle on them. That's what the bull whips are used for, NOT whipping liberals who support gay rights, getting rid of GOD and Christmas and the Ten Commandments (although not a bad idea). So please do not put a spin on things on which you have no cultural understanding.
Uh, call me naive...but I cannot picture many of today's cattle ranchers using bullwhips. A cultural tribute to cattle ranchers? That is a bit of a stretch (or "spin"), in my opinion. Quiz question: Did Tom DeLay (A) spend time as a cattle rancher, or (B) get thrown out of college for repeated alcohol offenses? I suggest the presence of his bullwhip collection is more likely is the fact that DeLay was the House of Representatives Majority "Whip" from '95 - '03.
Yesterday the Senate went into a rare closed session, insisting that Phase 2 of an investigation (examining the Bush administration's use of intelligence to justify going to war) be delivered as promised. Phase 1 was a 500 page report released last July finding that "the United States went to war on false claims from a highly dysfunctional intelligence network led by the CIA".
Also in the news recently was this information regarding the Bush administration:
Government misses security deadlines since 9/11
The Bush administration had missed dozens of deadlines set by congress after the Sept. 11 attacks for developing ways to protect airplanes, ships, and railways from terrorists. A plan to defend ships and ports from attack is six months overdue. Rules to protect air cargo from infiltration by terrorists are two months late. A study on the cost of giving anti-terrorism training to federal law enforcement officers who fly comercially was supposed to be done more than three years ago."
The Nov. 7th Newsweek magazine has a cover story titled "Cheney's Men", outlining the chronology and involvement of Libby, Cheney, Rove, Hadley, Wilson, Plame, Tenet, Fitzgerald, et al. It is a good read, including an interesting history describing Wolfowitz neocons vs. the CIA, and Libby's obsession with "Intrepid"...code name for a British intelligence agent loyal to Churchill in the 30's. Apparently Intrepid and his boss conspired to get America into the fight against the Nazis by warning that Germany was building an atom bomb. Hmmmm...
Quiz question answer: B
My appologies to anyone in education, but I have a problem with the NEA.....
In my mind, it's the closest thing to a union running a corporation I can think of!!!:bonk:
I think it's a real conflict of interest!!!
A conflict of interest between who and who? Here are two concepts that conservatives often cite as reasons for opposing the NEA.
The NEA advocates a strong public education system, twelve years of compulsory education, one of the many things that make our country successful. The NEA opposes using public funds for private schools. Envision the elitism and segregation by allowing public money to fund private schools. First a school for Catholics, then a school for Baptists, next a school for Hispanics, a school for rappers, a school for Jews, a school for athletes, a school for young republicans ;) , a school for MENSA offspring, a school for white supremists, a school for blacks, etc., etc.
Sometimes the NEA's acceptance of diversity bothers people. Guess what...it is their JOB! Public schools do not have the privilege of screening applicants before educatng them. Our nation educates ALL, regardless of race, intelligence, ability, beliefs, gender orientation, homelife, socio-economic status, or any other of a myriad of factors.
If these two topics are not your opposition to the NEA, then please elaborate, George.
Schnook
11-02-2005, 06:17 PM
OK, you're naiive. Are you really taking the position of telling someone in Texas how Texan culture works? (never thought I'd use 'Texan' and 'culture' in the same sentence). By the way, is that the same newsweek whose China version recently ran a cover picture of an American flag in a dumpster? What a source! By the way, there is also considerable evidence that the British had intelligence concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor, but Churchill chose not to in order to get the US into the war. Too bad we were duped into getting into that one.
gcarter
11-02-2005, 06:29 PM
I'm glad you asked!
The PRIMARY purpose of the NEA is a labor union. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem that most school administrators are members also!!!
Since the NEA is representing both the teachers AND the administration, and that the bulk of the curiculum, regulations, and work rules are genreated by representatives of this same organisation, who is representing the parents?
To me it's no wonder that parents who can afford to are vacating government schools.
Tony, these are my opinions, they may not have any more basis in fact than some of the goofy posts we see here about the price of oil.
But if I had children, they wouldn't go to government schools that were administrated by folks that belonged to te NEA.
Tony, I have trmendous respect for hard working, dedicated educators that spend countless uncompensated hours and large amounts of their own money to do their job.
I just have a problem with the NEA.
George, your posts and opinions are well-stated and respectful. While it may differ from state to state, I know (personally) know of no administrators who are members of the NEA. School principals have the unenviable task of trying to please three different groups, often with three distinctly different agendas...the school board, the parents, and the teachers. Couple this with increased responsibilities due to budget constraints consolidating administrative staff. Next add the massive increase of mandated standardized tests, which confusingly threaten federal money if a school does not meet "adequate yearly progress" based almost soley on the standardized tests.
I personally know about a dozen principals, three superintendents, and two curriculum coordinators. Almost to a man, they miss teaching and working with kids. I have heeded their warning, and despite my masters degree in educational administration, I currently have no desire to enter that profession. The increased stress and added time commitment is just not worth the modest salary increase. Strangely, I enjoy teaching sixth graders, coaching eighth grade volleyball, and high school tennis!
Just watched Larry King interview Jimmy Carter, discussing his new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis
Here is a long but interesting excerpt regarding American's beliefs on a variety of topics, with partisan lines being examined, also. (Oh-oh, the Texas guys are gonna really hit the roof when they read the section on the NRA! I am DOOMED!)
Read an excerpt from Our Endangered Values:
Chapter 1
The most controversial issues being addressed within our nation will be discussed in the following chapters. It will be helpful to understand the prevailing personal opinions of American citizens, their differences and similarities, how they have been modified or remain the same, and whether they are compatible with the profound political changes taking place in our country.
Stronger and sharper partisan differences have evolved among Americans in recent years, quite a departure from when I was in the White House. In those days, I had a good "batting average" in having my proposals accepted by the Congress, and the political divisions were based much more on issues than on whether members were Democrats or Republicans. As a Southern moderate and former career naval officer, I espoused a conservative fiscal policy and a strong defense. A commitment to human rights came, I guess, from my personal knowledge of the devastating effect of racial segregation in my region of the country.
Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of legislative proposals -- to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy -- and I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me as president.)
Nowadays, the Washington scene is completely different, with almost every issue decided on a strictly partisan basis. Probing public debate on key legislative decisions is almost a thing of the past. Basic agreements are made between lobbyists and legislative leaders, often within closed party caucuses where rigid discipline is paramount. Even personal courtesies, which had been especially cherished in the U.S. Senate, are no longer considered to be sacrosanct. This deterioration in harmony, cooperation, and collegiality in the Congress is, at least in part, a result of the rise of fundamentalist tendencies and their religious and political impact.
Fortunately, this degree of rigidity and confrontation has not yet taken hold among the general public. In preparing this book I have searched for the best assessments of American public opinion, so that I could understand the reasons for, and the extent of, agreements and divisions among our people.
A strong majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree that our country is more politically divided than at any time in living memory, a fact that is partially explained by the doubtful presidential election of 2000 and the almost unchanging split during the following years between "red" and "blue" states. Partisan differences of support and disapproval of our two most recent presidents are quite clear, with the personal popularity of President Bush among Democrats lower than was President Clinton's among Republicans while his impeachment proceedings were under way. The ongoing Iraqi war is especially indicative, with diametrically opposite opinions on whether the conflict is going well or has improved national security.
These sharp disagreements might be written off as just partisan wrangling, but their impact on our nation's present and future international policies is significant. Among Republicans, the percentage endorsing diplomacy in preference to military action is minimal, while Democrats take the opposite point of view. In the approach to combating terrorism, two-thirds of Republicans believe that use of overwhelming force is best, while an even larger proportion of Democrats think that, although our armed forces should be used when our nation's security is threatened, excessive use of military action tends to increase animosity against our country and breed more terrorists. This sharp and growing difference over the issue of whether international disputes can be better resolved by diplomacy or by military action is now the most accurate predictor of party affiliation -- more important than gay marriage, homosexuality, or abortion.
It is encouraging that Americans overwhelmingly agree on several important questions: the value of religion in individual lives, the power of personal initiative to realize human potential, the need to protect the environment even if that is costly, doubt about the integrity of big business, and a desire for federal obscenity laws against hard-core pornography to be enforced vigorously.
Although the number is small, four times as many Republicans as Democrats think that tough environmental laws hurt the economy. There has been a substantial increase in the number of Republicans who have confidence in government, with little difference now between the parties in that regard. Americans also increasingly support more government assistance for the poor and needy, but one remaining difference is that many more Republicans than Democrats believe that poor people have easy lives. It is encouraging that this prejudice against the poor is decreasing significantly among all Americans.
There are strong differences about social issues, but many opinions are changing and most of them have little clear impact in the political arena. The intensity of feeling about controversial issues is often much more important than the numerical divisions. This is especially apparent when the subject of debate is abortion or gun control, where the opinion of a persistent majority of Americans has had little effect in the political world.
A majority of Americans think that abortions should be legal in all or most cases, and only one in six believes that all abortions should be illegal. The fervor and activism of this small minority greatly magnify their influence, especially within the U.S. Congress.
Concerning gun control, an overwhelming majority believe in the right to own weapons, but four of five Americans prefer modest restraints on handguns, including a background check, mandatory registration, and a brief waiting period before one is purchased.
A disturbing change in government policy has involved the firearms industry. Supported by succeeding Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, legislation was passed by Congress in 1994 that for ten years prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of nineteen specific semiautomatic assault weapons, including AK-47s, AR-15s, and UZIs. None of these are used for hunting -- only for killing other humans. More than eleven hundred police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation called on Congress and President Bush to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, but with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
This is not a controversy that involves homeowners, hunters, or outdoorsmen. I have owned and used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own a handgun, four shotguns, and two rifles. I use them carefully, for harvesting game from our woods and fields and during an occasional foray to hunt with my family and friends in other places. We cherish these rights, and some of my companions like to collect rare weapons.
But many of us who participate in outdoor sports are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and by the timidity of public officials who yield to their unreasonable demands. Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, their primary client, the NRA, has been able to mislead many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. There are no real threats to our "right to bear arms," as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If so, the NRA efforts would certainly be justified.
In addition to assault weapons, the gun lobby protects the ability of criminals and gang members to use ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty, and assures that a known or suspected terrorist is not barred from buying or owning a firearm -- including an assault weapon. The only criteria that the NRA has reluctantly accepted are proof of a previous felony, mental derangement, or being an illegal immigrant. Deeply concerned when thirty-five out of forty-four men on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns during a recent five-month period, the director of the FBI began to reexamine the existing law and asked some U.S. senators to consider amendments. The response of top officials in the NRA was to criticize the watch lists -- not the terrorists -- and to announce support for legislation that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability if a buyer uses an AK-47 in a terrorist attack. They also insist that background information on gun buyers be discarded within twenty-four hours, precluding the long-term retention of data that might reveal those who are plotting against our nation's security.
What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American children are sixteen times more likely than children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun, eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from firearms accidents.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research reports that the rate of firearm homicide in the United States is nineteen times higher than that of 35 other high-income countries combined. In the most recent year for which data are available, handguns killed 334 people in Australia, 197 in Great Britain, 183 in Sweden, 83 in Japan, 54 in Ireland, 1,034 in Canada, and 30,419 in the United States. The National Rifle Association, the firearms industry, and compliant politicians should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability.
When asked if they personally believe it is acceptable for gays and lesbians to engage in same-sex behavior, a majority of Americans respond affirmatively, which is a strong shift in opinion since twenty years ago, when responses to the same question were the reverse. There is some indication that this change of public opinion has had an impact among state and federal judges.
The views of Americans have also been changing regarding the death penalty, with support for "life without parole" now at about half and only one-third believing that the death penalty deters crime. In a nationwide poll, only 1 percent of police chiefs thought that expanding the death penalty would reduce crime. This change in public opinion also seems to be having an effect, both in state legislatures and in the federal courts.
These figures paint an overall picture of the beliefs of American citizens, surprisingly unchanged during the past five years. However, revolutionary changes have taken place in our government's domestic and foreign policies, affecting the definition and protection of "moral values."
As an American who has been deeply involved in the political life of our country, I find these statistics to be very interesting. As with almost all other citizens, however, my private life has been the major factor in shaping my own opinions and my personal reactions to the collective views of others.
Excerpted from Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter. Copyright 2005 by Jimmy Carter. Excerpted by permission of Simon & Schuster. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
this prejudice against the poor .
It's thoughts like that that really chap my ass. They act like being poor is a handicap you are born with, like missing a leg or something.:mad:
Schnook
11-03-2005, 07:13 AM
I am dying to respond to this, but alas, being not rich, I must toil at work until I either get rich or a bleeding heart liberal president creates some program for people like me. More to follow after I get back to my shanty!
txtaz
11-03-2005, 09:04 AM
Yeah Tony, They still use bull whips and cattle prods. Some even use horses over 4 wheelers. Cowboys are a unique breed, very nastalgic.
I can't comment on your 4 page rant, since I didn't read it. Reminded me of the liberals who get on TV and just whine, complain and rant.
BTW, if you cannot make your point in a few sentences, something is wrong. No need to go on and on to prove a point unless there is nothing there to start with.
Da Taz<<<---Let's all pretend rep power is republican power and click on Schnook's points.
gcarter
11-03-2005, 10:04 AM
I understand the former presidents rant. The Democrats were in control of congress for over 40 years. They have'nt been in over 10 years. They're sore losere and want it back.
Comity goes out the window.
I have no problem with Mr. DeLay. He's an agressive, ambitious, conservative leader in the house. He's from Texas. There probably is a culture problem with some (most) folks from the North. Texans are pretty energetic folks who generally don't wait around for someone else to do something. They tend to do it themselves. Just note the difference in the way that Texas responded to the hurricanes this summer as compared to the way Louisiana responded.
Mr DeLay IS squeaky clean. He will be found innocent. Mr Earle has made a career over many years of bringing charges against conservative of either party. He did this to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson ten or so years ago. The case was thrown out. Mr. Earle does not have a great win lose ratio. But in his position in the Democratic party he's in the position to do a lot of harm.
MrsDigger
11-03-2005, 11:27 AM
Jimmy Carter is hardly the poster boy for solid American values. The ramifications of his poor decisions (e.g. Iran, Panama Canal) are big problems, and will continue to be, long into the future.
There are very few people I despise more than Mr. Carter (Jane Fonda comes to mind, perhaps Hillary Clinton, and our traitorous pal John Kerry). I was appalled to see the Navy name a sub after him, and even more appalled that he had the gall to show up to christen the ship.
That being said, in my opinion, Carter is a failed president, a failed politician, a socialist philosopher of dubious intellectual capacity, and a whining apologist, and as such has no credibility. I'd sooner read something by Franken or Michael Moore.
gcarter
11-03-2005, 11:39 AM
Jimmy Carter is hardly the poster boy for solid American values. The ramifications of his poor decisions (e.g. Iran, Panama Canal) are big problems, and will continue to be, long into the future.
There are very few people I despise more than Mr. Carter (Jane Fonda comes to mind, perhaps Hillary Clinton, and our traitorous pal John Kerry). I was appalled to see the Navy name a sub after him, and even more appalled that he had the gall to show up to christen the ship.
That being said, in my opinion, Carter is a failed president, a failed politician, a socialist philosopher of dubious intellectual capacity, and a whining apologist, and as such has no credibility. I'd sooner read something by Franken or Michael Moore.
Not to mention he never met a socialist leader he didn't like, remember the Sandanistas?, and oh yeah, Castro.
Schnook
11-03-2005, 12:35 PM
I have to say I agree with the peanut farmer's opinion on the polarization of politics in Washington - and that's about it. All of your opinions are spot on. One thing I have to give credit for is this administration has never apologized for being American. I remember my dad telling stories of Americans getting kidnapped overseas and the Marines went to get them. The U.S. has become so worried about upsetting others that we have forgotten we are the most powerful country in the world and don't need permission to ensure our security and well being. People like Mr. Carter would have us asking France for permission to fart so they will like us. Diplomacy should always be the first option, but diplomacy for diplomacy's sake is simply a way for other nations to impose their agendas on us.
Uh-oh, the man is back from lunch gotta go, domestic issues later!
I can't comment on your 4 page rant, since I didn't read it. Reminded me of the liberals who get on TV and just whine, complain and rant.
BTW, if you cannot make your point in a few sentences, something is wrong. No need to go on and on to prove a point unless there is nothing there to start with.
Check it out, the long post was an excerpt from former President Carter's new book. There...two sentences total!
Schnook
11-03-2005, 07:11 PM
NEWS HEADLINE : NEA HAS COW AS FORMER PRESIDENT AND CAREER NAVAL OFFICER TAKES FOUR PAGES TO WRITE TWO SENTENCES!!!
pictures at 11.
p.s. I love tequila! The wife is making margarita's - we do a lot that in Texas, too. Been to Chacho's lately, Taz?
That being said, in my opinion, Carter is a failed president, a failed politician, a socialist philosopher of dubious intellectual capacity, and a whining apologist, and as such has no credibility. I'd sooner read something by Franken or Michael Moore.
While entertaining to opine on recent and current presidents, it is ultimately history that will judge the accomplishments and embarrassments of said men. However, it seems to me quite unlikely that a man of "dubious intellect" would be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize!
As an aside, Mrs. Digger, and realizing I am not current with your husband's assignment but seeming to recall previous duties, it's probably not Mr. Digger's left arm on p.33 of the 11/7 Newsweek, right?
NEWS HEADLINE : NEA HAS COW AS FORMER PRESIDENT AND CAREER NAVAL OFFICER TAKES FOUR PAGES TO WRITE TWO SENTENCES!!!
pictures at 11.
So far I have been following, albeit disagreeing, with your posts.
With this one, though, 'ya lost me!
txtaz
11-04-2005, 05:41 AM
Check it out, the long post was an excerpt from former President Carter's new book. There...two sentences total!
Nice job Tony. Keep it up. LOL
Darcy, Carter is VERY, HIGHLY intelligent. He has a PhD in Nuclear Physics.
Schnook, Hmmmmmm, Chacho's....You know we live about 2 miles from them and they are open 24 hours. We had breakfast there last week. The misses LOVES their margaritas. They are the strongest in town and I have to carry her home after one.
OK, enough of this politics talk, I'm going boating...HEY RICHARD get her ready....WoooHoooo
Da Taz<<<---Neither rain, nor hail or sleet will keep me from going boating tomorrow
Taz, I'm done too...it was fun bantering.
But, I only WISH I was going boating tomorrow!
Schnook
11-04-2005, 07:55 AM
Tony, you're right - I re-read my post and lost myself! Anyway I enjoyed the exchange. I'm going to try to go out on Sunday, this will be the first time we have to fill up the boat, maybe Taz could send up one of those margaritas to ease my pain!
txtaz
11-04-2005, 08:08 AM
Tony, Come on down. We'll take you out even if you are a Red Wings fan (oohhh, I'm going to stir up something now)
Schnook, Do you want that on the rocks or frozen? Ohh and just a hint that works for me, close your eyes when signing for the gas.
Da Taz<<--Off to get my boat.
MrsDigger
11-04-2005, 03:26 PM
A. A PhD does not a genius make.
B. If I concede that Carter has a modicum of intellectual capability, it is only because a person must be reasonably clever to obfuscate reality in such a way that they are able to not only fool themselves, but a majority of the voting public.
C. Earning the Nobel Prize for Peace isn't much of a qualification, in my book...the UN and Kofi Annan won in 2001...past winners include Yasser Arafat and Amnesty International...and Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won for the Vietnam Peace Accord in '73...remember the killing fields? Hmmm...
ChromeGorilla
11-04-2005, 03:58 PM
I was appalled to see the Navy name a sub after him, and even more appalled that he had the gall to show up to christen the ship.
Are you serious? Not only was he a submariner, but he played a very large roll in having Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base come to fruition .... He is a significant member of the submarine community. Honoring him in this manner is a very appropriate gesture.
A. A PhD does not a genius make.
Yeah, they hand PhD's out in nuclear physic's everyday..... :rolleyes: I'll be sure to let my dad know that since that is what he holds as well......
Your right, maybe not a genius, but extremely intelligent and an extraordinary achievement no less....
Though I was no fan of his, it's hard seriously question Kissingers intellect, whether you agreed with him or not.
Schnook
11-04-2005, 05:53 PM
[QUOTE=ChromeGorilla]Are you serious? Not only was he a submariner, but he played a very large roll in having Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base come to fruition .... He is a significant member of the submarine community. Honoring him in this manner is a very appropriate gesture.
14 years after leaving the submarine community, I still have bug bites from that swamp they call a naval base. Carter got a little pork fat for Georgia when there was an existing naval base 25 miles to the south in Jacksonville and another at Port Canaveral in Florida - bitter? I'm not bitter.
ChromeGorilla
11-04-2005, 06:06 PM
LOL...love those sand gnats........ Mayport Naval station was very close but there was not room for an additional 10 ships......... plus after being in KB..... you know what the LA is..... and really isn't a place for such a storage facility in Mayport........
What did you do in the Navy?
BUIZILLA
11-04-2005, 06:19 PM
you know what the LA is..... what is an LA ??
ChromeGorilla
11-04-2005, 06:22 PM
Limited Area
An EXTREMELY secure area for storage.....:yes: :nuke: :yes:
Schnook
11-04-2005, 07:26 PM
LOL...love those sand gnats........ Mayport Naval station was very close but there was not room for an additional 10 ships......... plus after being in KB..... you know what the LA is..... and really isn't a place for such a storage facility in Mayport........
What did you do in the Navy?
I was a nuke electrician. USS Mariano G Vallejo SSBN 658 gold crew. She's razor blades now, or Taz's prop. Wasn't that storage on the tender? Or am I confused?
DonziJon
11-04-2005, 07:37 PM
I think I read somewhere on this board...or maybe I got the impression, Chrome was in the Navy. Good. I'm OLD Navy so I may be incorrect, but "LA" refers to Los Angeles class (SSN) attack submarines. Not (SSBN) missile submarines. :beer: Now it's "Miller Time"
PS: Rereading the previous posts..maybe I'm too old to be commenting on this subject. I got out in 1968.
Schnook
11-04-2005, 07:52 PM
LA is a Limited Area - a place you do not go or the Marines shoot you. That's where they store the missiles when they're not on the boat. I worked on the reactor and propulsion system, so I'm not too heavy on the subject, I just know the Marines always wanted to shoot someone!
roadtrip se
11-04-2005, 10:02 PM
as Jimmy Carter acuses us all of not doing enough of...
Let's talk and I'm not talking about the latest bling on the Donzi or the logs in the water at Lake Cumberland. Just stuff. The stuff you should talk about when you see each other and there is a common thread for people to chew on. I'm there and ready. See you at the next rally...
DonziJon
11-05-2005, 06:41 PM
What a difference almost Four Decades makes. Only you guys who have been in the Submarine Service....Or still are... will be able to identify with this. I was stationed at SuBase NLon from 1964 to 1966. There was the Upper Base, and there was the Lower Base. The "two" bases were seperated by the railroad tracks. That was it. Got a base sticker??? Go any where you want.
A few years ago, my wife and I were driving around the base (This was Before (9/11). We had a current base sticker from Newport. We were just touring around. We drove down under the railroad trestle to the Lower Base and were greeted by the Marines! Full camos and M-16s. This particular Marine was very intent on doing his job. I thought he had waived me on because I had a current base sticker. DOD Base stickers work anywhere. I drove about 50 feet and heard the distinct sound of a weapon being cocked:: Ca..chunck I pulled over imediantly. He walked up and informed me that the best thing for me to do (SIR) was to turn around and retrace my route. That's what I did. :cool!:
txtaz
11-06-2005, 07:35 AM
I was a nuke electrician. USS Mariano G Vallejo SSBN 658 gold crew. She's razor blades now, or Taz's prop. Wasn't that storage on the tender? Or am I confused?
I knew there was some reason I liked you.:wavey: I was a nuclear electrician also. Did staff tours Nuke Power School Orlando and Prototype in Idaho Falls. Then a tour on the California for a West Pack. Then I got out and started making money. Ahahaha. But the time was worth it.
Da Taz<<--Wondering who's austenetic stainless steel is in my prop
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.