Moving on with life: the Bush saga continues

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TomB, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Unions don't organize anymore my friend. Card check recognition is the name of the game now. To fill you in if you don't know what that means: The union pickets your building, follows you to your customers, visits your employeees at home, files numerous lawsuits against you for, well, pretty much anything they can; makes huge promises of pay increases/vacation benefits/retirment, and hopes that it disrupts your business so much that you cave in! The the union is then accepted without, guess what, a VOTE! US Labor Law past over 50 years ago to protect union organization is often now the very fiber of what's pushed to the limit to win. Some would say even abused! Old school organizing is just too expensive for organizations that have lost over 2 million member in the last ten years! No members = no money! No money = no organizing! Too make matter worse, the work output of skilled labor in the USA now lags behind almost every industrial nation. We are competing in a global economy now and US labor unions are losing jobs! This trend will continue without some realistic reflection on both sides of the bargaining table. One thing is for sure, Labor Organizations are now as responsible as corporations for costing you and your brothers jobs. To see it, just read the papers......
  2. Southsound Steve Cole - Nisqually and Adjacent Environs

    Posts: 325
    South Puget Sound (again!), WA, USA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    Don...

    Couldn't agree more. What is happening under this administration is the systematic dismantling of any serious enforcement capacity within EPA, a wholesale rejection of the spirit and letter of the roadless areas rules, suspension of any meaningful regulation of SO2 and CO2 emissions, an open invitation to developers to drain and pave our scant remaining wetlands, and the list goes on ad naseum. In comparison, the wretches from the Reagan era were nice guys. If you want to fish Southeast Alaska and experience anything like what it has been for the last few thousand years, better go soon. And watch for more dead streams and fish in the Northeast and East. (One last thought - hatchery salmon are really native salmon, right!?!)

    your's in fear and loathing

    Steve Cole
  3. seymoretrout biological assessor

    Posts: 25
    Yakivegas
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    This line of rants makes me appreciate the concept of cognitive dissonance. It's not me, it's the man behind the tree, I drive my S.U.V., I piss, I pee, I pooh, I drink lattes, I pollute, I vote, Bush is scrote, Kerry loves fairies, I see that canary in our coal mine--you don't, I live by the laws of nature and you don't, it's everybody's fault but mine, take me back to a simpler time..... where the true believers weren't on both sides.

    "Become the change you seek in the world" Gandhi
  4. bugnuts Member

    Posts: 128
    U.P., WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    The liberals should know by now that the environment cannot be regulated in a vacuum...every [governmental] action necessarily has a [economic and adverse] reaction. Unless you truly believe that GW's administration literally hates the environment and wants to destroy it, you have to question what free market forces are powering the current policies. (If you do believe that GW hates the environment, then you are an idiot.)

    How about a law that not only maintains the "roadless area" rules, but outlaws chopping down trees altogether. In the vacuum, it sounds great...old growth forests left to continue growing, entire drainage basins free of erosion and mudslides, ancient ecosystems allowed to thrive, etc. In the real world, however, there are those pesky jobs, the public's heavy demand for wood, and of course the profits of the big nasty corporations like Weyerhauser and Simpson who employ just a few people around here and pump just a few tax dollars into the state's budget. They can only chop down trees where there are trees left, right?

    The above example is purposely simple (and inane), but it gets much more complex when you talk about lesser known statutes and their economic impact. The public wants what it wants...I would wager that a majority of Americans think we should be tapping the AK oil reserves even if there are known adverse environmental impacts. The point always has been that until the public, and specifically consumers of a particular resource, not only make individual sacrifices but do so as a cohesive group so as to affect those market forces, then environmental policy will be dictated by market support of the corporations.

    Every time I drive out of my neighborhood, I see a huge clearcut area that used to be dozens of acres of old growth forest. The sign states some construction company name and says, "84 new homes...starting in the low $400's". I always think that it sucks that there are not many woods left around my home and that I used to play in those woods, but then I sadly realize that if the public was not clammering to buy the new homes, then there would be no clearcut. It doesn't mean I like it, but I simply don't go calling the mayor a crook or accusing the building department of raping the environment. That would be easy, of course. ;)
  5. Randy Knapp Active Member

    Posts: 1,132
    Warm Springs, Virginia, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Not all Christians voted for Bush. I consider myself a very Biblically knowledgeable "born again" Christian and I voted for Kerry along with many other Christians. Check out: http://www.sojo.net If you want reasons, I can give you plenty and this war has NOTHING to do with freedom and hasn't from the beginning and I am a Viet Nam veteran with a Distinguished Flying Cross, 38 Air Medals, and a Single Mission Air Medal with bronze star.

    Randy
  6. Don Johnson Duke of Furl

    Posts: 119
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  7. Kalm Member

    Posts: 446
    Cheney, The Dry Side
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The public wants what it wants...I would wager that a majority of Americans think we should be tapping the AK oil reserves even if there are known adverse environmental impacts. The point always has been that until the public, and specifically consumers of a particular resource, not only make individual sacrifices but do so as a cohesive group so as to affect those market forces, then environmental policy will be dictated by market support of the corporations.

    But environmental policy shouldn't be driven by GOVERNMENTAL support of the corporations like it is being done now. Or are you one of those new fangled "big government conservatives"?

    Corporate greed and public selfishness dictate that there are some instances where government actually needs to regulate and sometimes make unpopular decisions (like tax increases, the kyoto treaty, nafta, etc.) It's called leadership and both parties are poor at it. But the republicans happen to be in control right now, so where does the buck stop?

    It turns out that our so called "free market" does not operate in a vacuum either.
  8. Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    The Next Four Years – by Jamie Court

    “In the next four years, we’ll see greed breed. That’s the Bush administration’s agenda. And to accomplish it, top tactic will be to make you terrified of government itself. How else can Americans be convinced to trust the unrestrained market power of big oil, drug companies, HMO’s and Citibank if we didn’t fear government more.

    Does anyone really believe that any government official, except Dick Cheney is scarier than an HMO bean counter? Well, I guess if you can confuse Saddam and Osama, no other switcheroo is that remarkable. For four years, President Bush will turn every day on Capitol Hill into Halloween. The trick will be scaring us into turning government over to the free market. The treats will be reserved for the biggest companies that paid to put Bush in power. Wall Street will take over social security funds because our government just can’t be trusted to manage the people’s money. It’s safer in the hands of those ethicists at Merrill Lynch. Alaska will be open to drilling because oil companies know better than government how to keep gasoline prices low while protecting the environment. Doesn’t Shell advertise in the National Geographic?

    And if you want companies to stay here instead of shipping our jobs abroad, then you better trust them to make products that won’t harm you and decisions that won’t cost you. So let’s just get rid of those activist judges and juries made up of people like you. Instead, just toss away your legal right to sue. Look, government has never been the model of efficiency. But when it comes to being scary, I’ll run from the drug maker, the chemical company, and the HMO every time. We the people are the government. And if you’re scared of government, then you’re scared of yourself.”
  9. bugnuts Member

    Posts: 128
    U.P., WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Thanks for quoting yet another "authority", Skinny. For those who are not familiar with Jamie Court, he wrote a conspiracy theory rag on how the big bad corporations in America are stealing your very freedom. Guess who wrote the foreward in the book...another stellar "authority" named Michael Moore. Court is kind of like a liberal Ralph Nader, so I'm not surprised to hear his cynical doomsday predictions. Yikes.

    Government policies that aid corporations are not the sin you think they are Kalm. There are greedy bastards all over the place, and the majority of them are not CEO's. Companies employ us, produce the goods we need, sustain our local and even regional economies, and pay their fair share to the state for the privilege of doing so. They are not the enemy, but they are an awfully easy target.
  10. TomB Active Member

    Posts: 1,620
    seattle,wa
    Ratings: +58 / 0
    Sorry guys I just want to add one little rant and rave:

    all of you are trying to discredit the views and written opinions of "experts" that the other side has quoted. I think doing so is bullshit regardless of which side you are on. It may be true that "experts" on both sides are biased and present unequally weighted versions of stories. This fact however, does not mean that what they say is useless. Very little is black or white in this world, and by dismissing views with bias, you are tossing out all the grey. The opinions and writings of experts, or anyone else for that matter, should be considered under two contexts: 1. an examination of the background and bias of the diseminator of the given opinion, 2. an examination of the statistics, figures, and information they gave and where it came from. The bickering over who is more valid is bullshit without the context to back it up, and even then, it is still valid, it is just understood differently. Nobody is the absolute unbiased authority on an issue PERIOD.
    -Tom
  11. clockwork New Member

    Posts: 318
    bothell township
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    the classic conservative comeback is to simply deny acknowledging the existence of credible sources from the other side. micheal moore is a popular one to discredit. i put the burden of proof on people like bugnuts to tell me what makes MM an unreliable source? he's made a career of researching these types of things and id be willing to stake my life on the fact that im sure he knows about a zillion times more about the said subject than you do. you like to discredit him becuase he has provided a number of stats and insights that you dont want to hear. you discredit him because YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR IT, not because you can disprove him. i dont want to hear alot of the things he says either and i disagree with him on some things, i hated the Columbine movie for example but i liked alot of(not all of) 911 movie.

    in debating this subject with conservatives, ive found they wont acknowledge a reliable leftist source exists. ive had people discredit RFK, JFK, Gore, Clinton, MM of course and any others you might be able to cite.
  12. Bright Rivers Member

    Posts: 513
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Credibility

    It is not "bullshit" to dismiss the claims of a source that lacks credibility. "Background" and "Bias" are relevant to make that determination, but at some point a person's background and bias may reasonably lead you to dismiss his point of view. If you read an article about an exciting new cure for cancer, hopefully your response to the story will differ depending on whether you are reading the Journal of Oncology or the National Enquirer.

    Compare Bob Woodward to Michael Moore. Both are smart, talented, and have dedicated their careers to a certain muckraking sort of journalism. And both have said very negative things about President George W. Bush. The difference is that Bob Woodward is a journalist who has spent his career building credibility, and Michael Moore is a propagandist who has flushed his down the toilet. When Bob Woodward says something that I disagree with or hate to hear, I listen carefully, swallow hard, and say, “I really hope he’s wrong about that.” But I would not waste my time even listening to what Michael Moore has to say, any more than I would waste my time reading blog pieces on any number of propagandist web sites, conservative or liberal. They just aren’t credible.

    I don’t want to hear him, because he has no credibility. And I will not waste my time even thinking about disproving a source that has no credibility. What would be the point? Give me a credible source, and you will find me to be an eager listener, whether I like what I am hearing or not. As an example, when Richard Clark wrote a book criticizing Bush’s handling of the war on terror, he had my attention because of his credibility as an advisor to Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. I didn’t like what he had to say, but I listened and gave it great weight because of his credibility. But I won’t even read the inside cover of most of the anti-Bush books that have been published in the last 18 months. It has nothing to do with perspective. At the risk of wearing the word out, I'll say it one more time . . . It’s all about credibility.
  13. clockwork New Member

    Posts: 318
    bothell township
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    i think you are criticizing and discrediting him based on his approach, the way he presents his material in a marketable, entertaining and profitable way, however, this still doesn't prove him wrong nor an uncredible source. the facts(in question) may be there they are just surrounded by propaganda. of course it goes both ways. i havn't proven him right either.

    he uses entertainment to persuade people to listen to his ideas, its simple and reasonable, not necessarily damning. info doesnt have to come from dry, neutral party literature, such a thing doesnt exist.
  14. TomB Active Member

    Posts: 1,620
    seattle,wa
    Ratings: +58 / 0
    "It is not "bullshit" to dismiss the claims of a source that lacks credibility" Bright Rivers

    I think it is bull to completely dismiss someone. No matter how outlandish their claims, you should consider their bias and try to understand WHY they are making those claims. Obviously you take them with a grain of salt compared to sources with reputable backgrounds but I still think it is wrong to completely ignore.
    -Tom
  15. Kalm Member

    Posts: 446
    Cheney, The Dry Side
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Michael Moore has at least the same credibility as Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. They are entertainers, not journalists. They occassionally present facts but deal mostly with opinion.

    Bright's example of Bob Woodward as credible is a good one. I would add to that list David Broder, Thomas Friedman, Ted Koppel, and Tim Russert. Pretty difficult to discern a bias from those four (with the possible exception of Broder although you can't impugn his facts.
  16. Cactus Dana Miller

    Posts: 667
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    With the exception of Limbaugh, that's absurd! Hannity, Snow and O'Reilly, while argueable biased, will have a discussion with anyone who differs from their opinions, Moore will not. He has ALWAYS refused to defend his positions because he knows that his movies are propoganda that can easily be disproven. Moore is nothing more than a modern day, high tech Leni Riefenstahl. In fact, Hannity was following Moore around the country prior to the election and challenging him to debate. Moore always refused.

    It really is amusing. The far left loves to rail on and on about capitalist greed, yet they adore Michael Moore who does nothing but pollute the political environment with lies and half-truths to line his own pockets.

    I have no problem discerning a bias from any of them. However, with the exception of Ted Koppel, I always read or listen to their editorals with interest. They are always well thought out and thought provoking. Just because someone has a bias, it doesn't mean they don't have something worthwhile to say.
  17. GreenButt New Member

    Posts: 102
    East Side, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The thing I cannot understand is why oh why do americans think W has done a good job on terror? We just stoked the fires of terror for the next 500 years! So my question to the more conservative minded authors on this thread is it that you actually think he's doing well, or you thought Kerry would be worse. Maybe people were just scared to change horses in midstream. Don't people know W was planning Iraq before 9/11? It had nothing to do with terror. Also what do you think will happen when we have an immediate need for our military? Our guys are going to be in Iraq for at least the next 10 years. Draft. I know most discussion here has been about the environment, but that was very insignificant in the minds of voters this election. Man, Ossama has played us well. We're doing everything he wants us to. Scary how one man can manipulate the most powerful country in the world. The fact that gay marriage weighed more heavily than terror or the economy is a frightful statement about the state of this country. Who gives two craps. The sanctity of marriage was lost when California invented divorce lawyers!
  18. bugnuts Member

    Posts: 128
    U.P., WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    When you went to bed on September 10, 2001, were you thinking about terrorism? When you woke up on September 11, 2001, did you watch the horror and think that "we" brought that on ourselves? Unless by "we" you mean Bin Laden and Al Qaida, then the answer is no.

    Damn straight he was planning...Saddam was flipping the UN off and the rest of the member nations were letting him get away with it. He was in violation of numerous UN mandates regarding free and open inspections, and he gave rise to the belief by everyone in DC that he was producing WMD's. You noted yourself that it had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Man...you have a strange view of the world. You just got done saying that Iraq as nothing to do with terror, yet somehow Bin Laden has coaxed us into war there. There is no question that GW considers the war in Iraq as an integral part of the overall war on terror, and given that over 25% of the "insurgents" fighting our troops there are Al Qaida imports who are not Iraqi citizens, I'd say he's spot on with that belief.

    My answer to your ultimate question about whether GW is doing a good job fighting terror: he's fighting an unprecedented war against an invisible army of kamikaze soldiers, and he's staying the course in the face of best-selling movies, rock star tours, a nasty campaign, and world opinion. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.
  19. Kalm Member

    Posts: 446
    Cheney, The Dry Side
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  20. Cactus Dana Miller

    Posts: 667
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Your right, that isn't his "modus operandi". He prefers to make false accusations and then hide when he is confronted. Moore is the same as the right wing wackos that came up with the "Clinton Circle of Death" and saying that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clinton's. :clown:

    The only difference is that the right wing nuts were never given any attention by leading Republican politicians, while Moore sits in the President's box next to Jimmy Carter at the Democrat National Convention and makes hundreds of millions of dollars doing so.

    There is a big difference between access to office holders and political pundants! John Kerry avoided situations where he would be given critical questions just as well as President Bush. I also don't recall Bill Clinton ever addressing the NRA!

    It is the very definition of political pundantry to throw out ideas and to argue, defend and debate them. This is why I listen to the likes of Thomas Friedman, David Broder, George Will, Tony Snow and others. It is also why I do NOT listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh!

    If Moore is way to the left of mainstream Democrats, why was he given a position of honor at the convention? Why did most of the Democrat leaders such as Sen. Tom Daschle see his movie and praise it?

    This is precisely the problem with the Democrat Party today. Michael Moore is seen as a leading proponant of it and the Democrats do nothing to disavow his hysterical rantings. It was a little difficult for Kerry to "move to the center" insincerely, when people such as Michael Moore are being honored!

    Until the Democrat Party gets back to the likes of JFK, RFK, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Jackson and others like them, the "blue states" (which in reality are blue cities and counties) will continue to get less and less. Taking a senator rated the most liberal in the country and trying to pass him off as a moderate just won't work.

    The whole trouble with today's Democrat Party is that it is way to the left of mainstream democrats.

    You mean kinda' like ABC, NBC and CBS all had the same "buzzwords" in common with The New York Times and Washington Post? Most radio talk shows are topical and speak about what's in the news. Even Air America talks about the same things. Are they getting the same talking points?

    I imagine that most of the radio guys make a good living doing what they do. But then again, Republicans are proponants of capitalism. Michael Moore on the other hand assails capitalisim, making him a hypocrite! No, the far left keeps enriching Moore while he tells them that capitalism will be the downfall of America and the world. Maybe if Moore would just give all of his millions to the "victims" of American capitalism and industrialism that he claims to speak up for!

    What Michael Moore does is the equivalent of if you encouraged everyone here to catch and release, citing the benefits, while keeping everything you caught!

    You really have NO idea if I believe everything conservative pundants say or not, now do you! Please, do tell me one person I have said I believe unconditionally?