Bush's flip flops
March 8, 2004 6:39 AM   Subscribe

Bush's flip flops Bad mouth Kerry? Look who truly speaks out of both sides of his smirking head. Compare and contrast in 500 words. Spelling counts.
posted by Postroad (68 comments total)
 
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
That's bad?

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
The major city that I live in has been doing this prior to Bush.
posted by thomcatspike at 6:49 AM on March 8, 2004


Again, like the famed 'Bush resume' I wished the writer had taken the time to annotate with official-esque news sources so it has a little research to back that thing up.
posted by ao4047 at 6:52 AM on March 8, 2004


Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
The major city that I live in has been doing this prior to Bush.


That's good?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:52 AM on March 8, 2004


who cares
posted by angry modem at 6:54 AM on March 8, 2004


Before getting elected in 2000 he also opined that he didn't believe it was the military's job to engage in "nation-building".

This all brings to mind the old adage that you can tell a politician is lying to you if his/her lips are moving. Heck, if the media was kissing my heiny the way the US networks are kissing Bush's I wouldn't give a damn what I had previously said either.
posted by clevershark at 7:02 AM on March 8, 2004


Well I care, for one. More to the point, which major foreign and domestic policy isn't HASN'T Bush flipFlopped on?

Ah yes - he cut taxes on the rich. He's been very consistent in pushing for that one.
posted by troutfishing at 7:03 AM on March 8, 2004


That link would be a whole lot more powerful if the person linked to articles showing each initial stance.
posted by bkdelong at 7:05 AM on March 8, 2004


Why is the white house engaging in this strategy of attacking Kerry on things on which Bush is twice as bad? His milarity record is even coming under fire for christ's sake.

All Kerry needs to do is convince the Daily Show to let them use the 'Bush 2000 Debates Bush 2003" bit for his campaign.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:09 AM on March 8, 2004


?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:11 AM on March 8, 2004


There was an article last week telling John Kerry's Waffles. Has has opinion changed or just keeping with the current times?
posted by thomcatspike at 7:19 AM on March 8, 2004


I think Postroad needed to stress the point that this was a retort- Bush's big campaign point against Kerry for the last few days has been a laundry list of things Kerry has "switched positions on."

This was supposed to be Kerry's rebuttal, though I don't understand why it's even an issue.... frankly, I've more optimistic about Kerry even if we're not sure what he'll do after four years of Bush, who's proven what's he actually doing.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:33 AM on March 8, 2004


So guess the question over whether posting FPPs to newsy type articles is over. But are we now going to start making FPP based on partisan weblogs?

Mean, because if that is the policy now... I'm sure myself and some others can come up with some interesting FPPs in the next 239 days.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:37 AM on March 8, 2004


talking to some of the younger peeps i know (20 somethings) who have never voted nor cared a wink about politics - i'd say AWOL has some serious problems

... this kids are pissed and ready to throw bush and his merry band of liars and opportunists out of office. just like the young peeps did here in minnesota to rudy boschwitz some 13 years ago...
posted by specialk420 at 7:45 AM on March 8, 2004


I'm sure myself and some others can come up with some interesting FPPs in the next 239 days.

Matt: run the website the way Steve wants and no one gets hurt.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:23 AM on March 8, 2004


I'm gonna start linking Little Green Footballs and Instapundit if we're going the partisan blog route. And Cold Fury and Denbeste and.... goody goody.

(Hint: let the partisan weblog posts stay where they are, on partisan weblogs)
posted by swerdloff at 8:32 AM on March 8, 2004


Gotta agree with Steve and swerdloff. This post sucks ass.
posted by jpoulos at 8:45 AM on March 8, 2004


Speaking of Bush and Kerry ...

Did anybody hear the "confrontation" (for lack of a better term) between Emma White and John Kerry. If not, here's a
Link

What this article doesn't tell you though, is John Kerry COMPLETELY misspoke. After his Matthew Shepard comment, he made another reference to "Mr. King getting dragged behind a truck in Texas, just because he was gay".

Um, what he meant was Mr. Byrd getting dragged behind a truck and not because he was gay, but because he was black.

It was very humorous, actually, to this non-partisan.

I'll be surprised if anybody sees this on national TV, though, but it was funny to hear him get his facts completely wrong.
posted by jlachapell at 8:47 AM on March 8, 2004


it was funny to hear him get his facts completely wrong.

Like the whole WMD issue? Oh wait, that wasn't funny, that resulted in several hundred Americans (not to mention thousands of Iraqis) being sent to their deaths...
posted by clevershark at 8:53 AM on March 8, 2004


Oooh - clever comeback clever shark.

Hello to the new boss, same as the old boss, eh, clevershark? Replace a liar with a liar? An idiot with an idiot? As long as he's a democrat that makes it all ok?

<pedestal>I'm so goddamned sick of the "anybody but bush" thing. Vote for whomever will be better. If Kerry turns out worse than Bush, I'm gonna blame every one of you for suspending your critical facilities.</pedestal> And yes, it's possible that Kerry will be worse than Bush.
posted by swerdloff at 9:04 AM on March 8, 2004


And yes, it's possible that Kerry will be worse than Bush.

In fact...it's not.
posted by lathrop at 9:26 AM on March 8, 2004


Oooh - clever comeback clever shark.
Clever? No. Old? Yes.

shark -
I'm not going to rehash WMD, that's already been talked about. Kerry voted in favor of it, yada yada, whatever.

I posted the link because it happened today and it was humorous to watch it. Chill out.
posted by jlachapell at 9:26 AM on March 8, 2004


Wow. Lathrop. Either you're short sighted, stupid, blind, or something worse.

Ways that Kerry could be worse than Bush:

1) Eliminates war on terror. The turn up in San Diego, courtesy of Iran and Hizbollah. The UN dithers as to what their response should be, and Kerry defers.

2) Iran stops cooperating with the UN nuclear group.

3) Libya sees that Bush is gone, Ghaddafi restarts his moribund program.

4) Companies around the US take the Heinz route and outsource almost all of their labor, both white and blue collar.

5) Unforseen things happen that we're not even thinking of yet, because we can't quite figure out what Kerry's position is, as he speaks out against things (PATRIOT act) and then votes for them anyway.

6) We pull totally out of Iraq, leaving chaos in our wake, and make Afghanistan '89 look like a picnic as civil strife, interrelgious warfare, and gangs take over.
And oodles more.

All I'm saying, and it's to an increasingly deaf and frothy audience, is think critically. Saying "it can't possibly get worse that Bush" is saying "I relinquish my thinking apparatus because this is a bad man." There are lots of bad men.

Worse than bush:
Mugabe.
Aristide.
Hussein.
Khomeni.
Kim.
Chirac. (Note, not because he's French, but because he's implicated up to the neck in the TotalFinaElf scandal AND in the EU financing scandals, to an extent far greater than Bushes with Enron).

So. There's six people who are worse than Bush. Is Kerry? Well, that's where the critical thinking that you and people like you refuse to do come in. It is possible that Bush ends up the lesser of two evils. We don't know much about Kerry yet. Keep an open mind.
posted by swerdloff at 10:00 AM on March 8, 2004


And yes, it's possible that Kerry will be worse than Bush.






swerdloff gets a new hat.
posted by specialk420 at 10:05 AM on March 8, 2004


we can't quite figure out what Kerry's position is, as he speaks out against things (PATRIOT act) and then votes for them anyway.

You, um, did read the main link, right, swerdloff?
posted by soyjoy at 10:20 AM on March 8, 2004


At the Daily Kos?

How often do you read Little Green Footballs, Soyjoy? Same claptrap, different Clapper.

Nice hat, though. From the "nyah nyah nyah nyah" school, I see, SpecialK.
posted by swerdloff at 10:30 AM on March 8, 2004


I love how every left-leaning weblog is refuted by saying "it's just a left-wing LGF." It's a highlight to the ignorance of those trying to act authoritative by asking "do you ever read LGF?" When clearly it just shows they don't either. Or at least pretend not to.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:43 AM on March 8, 2004


Matt: run the website the way Steve wants and no one gets hurt.


it's weird how some users spend most of their time here -- where they're not sulking on some kind of a self-imposed hiatus -- posting partisan stuff on the front page and simultaneously posing as the saviors of this site from Partisan Chaos.
but of course if Linnwood, swerdloff et al want to consider our friend Postroad -- the Michael Jordan of the deleted post -- as a paragon of MetaFilterian virtue, they're perfectly free to do that

my opinion on this FPP? it's pretty lame -- we all know where Kos, atrios, Marshall are and can go there if we want.
but I'm also pretty tired of the comparisons of Marshall, Kos and others to warblogs -- I have yet to see Kos or Atrios fly off the handle on a genocidal, anti-Muslim tirade like some warbloggers seem particularly fond of doing
posted by matteo at 10:45 AM on March 8, 2004


Whoever wins the election this fall, at least we'll hopefully have a legitimately elected leader.

5-4 does not an elected leader make.

I say hopefully and legitimate because of those Diebold machines and fresh memories of the mischief in Florida up to and during the election.

I thought postroad was trying to present a refutation to the current Bush statements and the Kos post was humorous folks, so lighten up. Oh, that's correct, Dear Leader MUST NOT be ridiculed.
posted by nofundy at 11:18 AM on March 8, 2004


matteo: No one is sulking.... And you may be tired of having your favorite daily reads pointed out as equally partisan, but you are just going to have to deal with that. I mean, next are you going to argue that BluzzFlash isn't the left wing equivalent, albeit with less readers, of the Drudge Report?

XQUZYPHYR: I do read DailyKos, not as much as I used to, before he switched from Movable type to his Scoop format, but I am very familiar with what goes on there. ( In fact I am a member of his Political State Report project.)

Point being: At a minimum lets keep out political FPPs to actual developments, and not "here is what blogger X thinks about Bush/Kerry." If that is what you want to do, as it has been said before: "Get your own weblog, fuckwit."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:23 AM on March 8, 2004


oh yeah:


posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:25 AM on March 8, 2004


So. There's six people who are worse than Bush. Is Kerry? Well, that's where the critical thinking that you and people like you refuse to do come in. It is possible that Bush ends up the lesser of two evils. We don't know much about Kerry yet. Keep an open mind.

Yeah, well, I don't recall anybody saying that just because Bush can be shown to be less evil than half a dozen other psychopaths and murderers that we need to let he and his posse of neocons and corrupt businessmen continue to run roughshod over our civil rights, all the while sending our kids off to die by the hundreds on fools' errands...

I guess I just feel like the Republican's must have in the final years of Clinton's presidency: it's impossible for me to understand how willfully blind and utterly devoid of any sign of human intelligence you would have to be to think that Bush had actually been a good President. He's done nothing good that any semi-competent politician wouldn't have done if dealt the hand of 9/11 (cause remember, despite thousands of deaths and billions of dollars, Afghanistan remains essentially an uncivilized slag heap and bin Laden remains uncaptured). But for the bad he and his posse have inflicted on this nation and the world, Bush should be sent to bed without his dinner and the posse should be lined up in front of a firing squad and shot between their beady eyes before they get us started on Syria or Iran or wherever-the-fuck-is-next we're gonna go a-nation-buildin' tomorrow...
posted by JollyWanker at 11:25 AM on March 8, 2004


Same claptrap, different Clapper

Maybe so, but the whole point of the post (and I agree it's a weak candidate for an FPP) is that it's ridiculous to tar Kerry as a flip-flopper given what Bush has done. Kos lists Bush flip-flops which are a matter of fact; without taking issue with any of those facts, you fall back on the same we-can't-have-Kerry-cause-he's-a-flipflopper line. Just seemed odd, is all.
posted by soyjoy at 11:36 AM on March 8, 2004


I guess I just feel like the Republican's must have in the final years of Clinton's presidency: it's impossible for me to understand how willfully blind and utterly devoid of any sign of human intelligence you would have to be to think that Bush had actually been a good President.

BINGO! It is called partisanship.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:11 PM on March 8, 2004


Who knew quonsar was in the pokey?
posted by hama7 at 1:31 PM on March 8, 2004


I just wish Bush were actually Barry Goldwater.

Furthermore, konolia is not and idealogue.
posted by hama7 at 1:37 PM on March 8, 2004


I guess I just feel like the Republican's must have in the final years of Clinton's presidency: it's impossible for me to understand how willfully blind and utterly devoid of any sign of human intelligence you would have to be to think that Bush had actually been a good President.
posted by specialk420 at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2004


Here is why people support Bush. I doubt people falling into any specific category are more than a third of the electorate, but collectively, they're going to be decisive, unless persuaded that Bush isn't the real thing on their issue, or that other issues should trump their issue. Ignore the reasons why Bush is widely supported, and Kerry will definitely lose.

(1) Some people really want lower taxes and fewer economic regulations.

(2) Some people really oppose further secularization and liberalization of cultural politics and policy.

(3) Some people really think that the Middle East respects nothing, and fears only force, and want a President who instills such fear.

(4) Some people really value the Second Amendment and a broad right to own firearms.
posted by MattD at 2:22 PM on March 8, 2004


Right, MattD. You've outlined what I think is obviously a majority outlook. Even those disappointed with Bush's fatuous domestic spending still support him on the things he's done right, namely; tax cuts and the war on terror.

Kerry doesn't really have any real supporters, just some people who want "anybody but Bush". Not too convincing.
posted by hama7 at 2:42 PM on March 8, 2004


MattD, as one of the folks you describe, I can state that you just laid out why I will NOT vote for Bush.

1) Lower taxes are fine unless spending increases, thus simply shifting the tax burden from those able to pay more to those who aren't, not now or in the future. Fewer economic regs are terrific, until jobs go elsewhere, prices for imports go up comparative to what we save in lower taxes (fuel anyone?) and corporate profits increase to the detriment of all levels of the middle classes. Adaptability is required, and Bush can't do it.

2) This is bullshit. What many are opposing is the further erosion of the seperation of church and state. Society shouldn't be anarchy, but it damn well shouldn't be a discriminatory theocracy either, and that's the dangerous path down which Bush is taking us.

3) Get over it. Bush doesn't instill fear, our military does. And those who want to fight that, will (as proven by the "bring it on" style missile attacks on Baghdad). The weight of world opposition instills fear. Bush talks a good fight but he's Barney Fife, and the one bullet is spent.

4) How is Bush better at this than Kerry? He's not, depending on when you ask him (waffles, anyone?).

Ignore Bush's record at your peril.

On preview, hama7, you couldn't be more wrong, unless you'd like to prove your stance about Kerry supporters. Remember, anecdotes aren't proof.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:47 PM on March 8, 2004


(1) Some people really want lower taxes and fewer economic regulations.

This has been a standard plank of the GOP for ages now and one that I have a certain respect for (though I personally don't agree with it in many cases). Usually it's coupled with a certain amount of fiscal responsibility in the budget as well but with Bush's new economics it seems just fine to cut taxes, increase spending AND go to war all at the same time.

(2) Some people really oppose further secularization and liberalization of cultural politics and policy.

Certainly, and these people are in the minority in a country that found secularization so important they wrote it into our founding documents.

(3) Some people really think that the Middle East respects nothing, and fears only force, and want a President who instills such fear.

Well I don't know what to say about this one. I have no doubt that such people exist but come on now, do you really think that people would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq if we knew then what we know now about WMD's?

(4) Some people really value the Second Amendment and a broad right to own firearms.

I agree 100% with you on this. The NRA has been a long time Republican stalwart but it has been a long time since Gun Rights were any kind of wedge issue in this country.

And on preview hama7, I doubt this is a majority position of the kind that say the economy and jobs might be. Many people have become disillusioned with Bush's "War on Terror" that has produced reduced civil liberties, a War in Iraq that was launched under the claim of a false threat and the lack of progress in finding real terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar.
posted by aaronscool at 2:53 PM on March 8, 2004


1) Eliminates war on terror. The turn up in San Diego, courtesy of Iran and Hizbollah. The UN dithers as to what their response should be, and Kerry defers.


Er, you what? This makes no sense whatsoever.


2) Iran stops cooperating with the UN nuclear group.

And of course, Bush is a big supporter of the UN...

3) Libya sees that Bush is gone, Ghaddafi restarts his moribund program.

I think it's been conclusively shown that Ghaddafi's withdrawal from policies of terrorism have nothing to do with Bush's "war on terrorism". Ghaddafi is more concerned with the economic damage wrought by UN sanctions. Oops, I mentioned the evil UN again.

4) Companies around the US take the Heinz route and outsource almost all of their labor, both white and blue collar.

And Bush has done what exactly to stop this?

5) Unforseen things happen that we're not even thinking of yet, because we can't quite figure out what Kerry's position is, as he speaks out against things (PATRIOT act) and then votes for them anyway.

Uh huh. Kerry might be a worse president because of situations we can't yet imagine. Do you realise how weird this sounds?

6) We pull totally out of Iraq, leaving chaos in our wake, and make Afghanistan '89 look like a picnic as civil strife, interrelgious warfare, and gangs take over.

The chaos that Bush created in the first place, you mean?

And oodles more.

Come on, one serious possibility in which Kerry might be a worse President. It can't be that hard can it?

Worse than bush:
Chirac. (Note, not because he's French, but because he's implicated up to the neck in the TotalFinaElf scandal AND in the EU financing scandals, to an extent far greater than Bushes with Enron).

And now I see that you're not arguing from any position of reason.
posted by salmacis at 2:57 PM on March 8, 2004


Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.

That bastard!
posted by Witty at 2:58 PM on March 8, 2004


1) Eliminates war on terror. The(y) turn up in San Diego, courtesy of Iran and Hizbollah. The UN dithers as to what their response should be, and Kerry defers.

And I thought Bush's Department of Fatherland Homeland Security was supposed to prevent that? Do you have any evidence that Kerry will do away with the DHS? Or perhaps you're surmising that the DHS will be ineffective? A strike against Bush, clearly. The rest I think salmacis pretty much covered, except for the fact that you're pulling these mewling nightmares right out of your terror puckered rectum.

6) We pull totally out of Iraq, leaving chaos in our wake, and make Afghanistan '89 look like a picnic as civil strife, interrelgious warfare, and gangs take over.


'Sounds like Afganistan after Bush committed us to not committing us. It looks to me like a lot of fear about what Kerry might do, as apologetics for what Bush has done. The Taliban is still around , drug warlords are growing poppies at an unprecedented rate, al Queda just picked up and moved, but Bush is tough on terror ... Right. But on the plus side, I'm sure that the free Republic of Kabul is doing just fine.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:11 PM on March 8, 2004


On preview, hama7, you couldn't be more wrong, unless you'd like to prove your stance about Kerry supporters.

Google is amazing.

I doubt this is a majority position of the kind that say the economy and jobs might be.

The economy is fine, and it's not the government's responsibility to create jobs, so let's leave that to businesses.

If you listen to a Democrat, you might think that your tax dollars should be confiscated in order to build 50 million dollar rainforests under domes in Iowa. Oh wait, that's true. Bye bye, money.

Kerry will not only increase taxes and "roll back" Bush's tax cuts, but also not defend the U.S.? Bye bye, Kerry.
posted by hama7 at 3:15 PM on March 8, 2004




hama7, your grasp of logic is, of course, fleeting. I'm sure that's part of your charm, but, a google search for person's posting on the internet about "anybody but Bush" does NOT prove that Kerry supporters are not actually real supporters of Kerry. That is what you claimed. In fact, since your grasp of the obvious is tenuous at best, I'll point out that if one believes in the dichotomy of "anyone but Bush" than, by definition, they support the opposition (hint, that would be Kerry). If you'd like to make some further point about the quality of that opposition instead of relying on innuendo to prove your nonexistent point, than kindly do so, and quit wasting time and effort about it.

Furthermore, your hystrionic offering about one Congressperson advocating pork as an indictment of the Democratic party is specious, obviously. If we even agree that the good rep from Iowa is an asshat, that hardly proves anything about the party he hails from, unless you choose to acknowledge every buttwipe who claims to be a Republican as representative of that party. Well, do you? I didn't think so.

Finally, your last claim, being far from a conclusion, is once again simply assumptive crap that you dredged from a place your hand really shouldn't go ... unless you enjoy that kind of thing ... which is okay ... if you wash it afterwards.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:29 PM on March 8, 2004


That is what you claimed. In fact, since your grasp of the obvious is tenuous at best, I'll point out that if one believes in the dichotomy of "anyone but Bush" than, by definition, they support the opposition (hint, that would be Kerry).

Well yea, now that there's no more Dean. At this point, "Anybody but Bush" supporters is synonymous with Kerry supporters... what other choice is there?
posted by Witty at 3:37 PM on March 8, 2004


Thank you Witty, that is the obvious conclusion. However, there is nothing stopping anyone from voting for a third party candidate. All of which stands against the point hama7 attempted to make about Kerry supporters.

It appears to me that too many Bushites are attempting to frame this election into a form of the lesser of two evils because they believe that their guy is a shoe-in in that contest. Uhhh, no. Kerry may not have been as good a choice as Dean, or Kucinich, or Clark ... to some. But that doesn't make Kerry a lesser choice than Bush. Logically, I would think that would be clear, except to poor hama7, of course.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:43 PM on March 8, 2004


Kerry will not only increase taxes and "roll back" Bush's tax cuts, but also not defend the U.S.? Bye bye, Kerry.

First Kerry's stated position is to rollback tax cuts on the top bracket only. Is this an increase? Technically yes but since these tax breaks are temporary only for the next 9 years by law technically no. Anyway I tire of the old stand by Republican mudslinging regarding taxing.

Second. not defend the US? What kind of inane scare tactic are you trying to use? Are you buying the whole Bush campaign propaganda about steady leadership without question? I don't see how any American Senator much less John Kerry a Vietnam Veteran who already has put himself into combat for our country would NOT defend our country against all threats foreign AND domestic.

Then again Bush could stoop lower than this already spurious charge...South Carolina maybe?

Personally I think we are in for one of the most negative Presidential Campaigns ever. I think this is in part how Bush (helped I'm sure by good ole Rove) plays the campaign game but more I think due to the fact that Bush has polarized our country in the extreme. Of all the things I think Bush has flip flopped on the one I am most disappointed about are his "Uniter not a Divider" and "Compassionate Conservative" claims.
posted by aaronscool at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2004


Kerry Ahead Of Bush In Poll

In the first national poll since the presidential campaign became a two-person race, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry leads President Bush, 52%-44%.
More than half of those surveyed, 54%, said Bush's use of
the images [of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks] was inappropriate.
posted by y2karl at 4:24 PM on March 8, 2004


Oh and based on that poll hama7:

"Two in three say economic conditions will be more influential than the war on terror when they vote."
posted by aaronscool at 4:32 PM on March 8, 2004


Yeah, but karl, that 52% doesn't really believe what they think they believe, as hama7 has taught us here. They'll come around once they start listening to the Racicot/Rove side of things.

(You don't really support Kerry... Kerry bad ... Bush less bad ... steady ... steady ... Hanoi Kerry ... Bush less bad ... Towers fall ... Bush cared ... Congress didn't care ... Hanoi Kerry ... Bush better than Bad Kerry ... Hanoi Kerry ... kill people good ... Kerry doesn't want to kill ... Kerry bad ... Bush better ... cue twilight zone theme ...)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:35 PM on March 8, 2004


If you listen to a Democrat, you might think that your tax dollars should be confiscated in order to build 50 million dollar rainforests under domes in Iowa. Oh wait, that's true. Bye bye, money.

ahhh mr. hama7 .... you might want to turn off the fox news stream in the background ... and check just who is getting that pork you mention ?? republicons...bigguy. just like the rest of the fuggin' federal budget.
posted by specialk420 at 4:43 PM on March 8, 2004


Kerry doesn't really have any real supporters


hahaha ... nah. none. see you in december hama7.
posted by specialk420 at 4:47 PM on March 8, 2004


From the article hama7 linked to...


Last week, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, persuaded key lawmakers to set aside $50 million for the rainforest project in Coralville, just outside Iowa City. Organizers call the project an unparalleled opportunity to teach children the wonders of the jungle, showcase clean energy concepts and boost the local economy by drawing tourists from across the Midwest. It would include a 20-story translucent dome.


The other examples of pork in the article point to Republicans. I don't think the the Democrats are pork-free, but the article doesn't list any.

A better use of money would be to preserve the rainforests we have.
Only a few of the thousands of such traditional medicinals used in tropical forests around the world have been tested by Western clinical methods. Even so, the most widely used already have commercial value that rivals farming and ranching. In 1992 a pair of economic botanists, Michael Balick and Robert Mendelsohn, demonstrated that single harvests of wild-grown medicinals from two tropical forest plots in Belize were worth $726 and $3,327 per hectare (2.5 acres) respectively, with labor costs thrown in. By comparison, other researchers estimated per-hectare yield from tropical forest converted to farmland at $228 in nearby Guatemala and $339 in Brazil. The most productive Brazilian plantations of tropical pine could yield $3,184 from a single harvest.



In short, medicinal products from otherwise undisturbed tropical forests can be locally profitable, providing markets are developed and the extraction rate is kept low enough to be sustainable. And when plant and animal food products, fibers, carbon credit trades, and ecotourism are added to the mix, the commercial value of sustainable use can be boosted far higher.
-Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life (p126)

On preview, hat tip to specialk420.
posted by john at 4:55 PM on March 8, 2004


Dammit, guys, would you let hama7 stew in the subtleties of his own misquote before you point out the blatant error of his assertion? You're really takin' the fun out of this ;-)
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:06 PM on March 8, 2004


i think swerdloff might have a conical hat and stool in the corner hama7 can borrow... :)
posted by specialk420 at 5:23 PM on March 8, 2004



Republican supporters were not alone, as they were joined by the group Billionaires for Bush. Around 30 students were present, all dressed in formal attire and holding signs such as "Blood for Oil."

Members also chanted slogans like "Who needs equal rights?" as they handed out pamphlets.

The "Billionaires" refused to give any real names or discuss the group's platform. Instead, participants attempted to mix in with the Bush supporters while chanting slogans.

Pamphlets included lines such as "tax cuts generously gave millionaires and billionaires nearly $100,000 for each billionaire" and "the benefits to the poor and lazy average less than $100 per year."

"I thought it would be great to support global warming," a demonstrator who would give his name only as Seymour Benjamins said. "You can see how white I am, and global warming gives better tans."

Bush supporters expressed their unhappiness with the Billionaires for Bush counter-rally.

"Liberal immaturity has really revealed itself tonight," Brian Kim '06 said. "Their chants have nothing to do with the candidates."

Smile!
posted by john at 5:34 PM on March 8, 2004


Dammit, guys, would you let hama7 stew in the subtleties of his own misquote before you point out the blatant error of his assertion?

What assertion? That Democrats like Kerry will rescind Bush tax cuts in order to finance more idiotic spending? No, That's true.

In case you did not get my drift here, or don't understand the meaning of "fatuous", you might realize that I condemn Bush as well for acting exactly like a Democratic tax-and-spend liberal, domestically.

Where he knocks the socks off of Kerry's dour hypocritical socialist policies is on (again) tax cuts and the war against crazy people who have declared war on the United States.

Kerry wants a weak and compliant America, and he will not get it. Bye bye, Kerry.
posted by hama7 at 5:54 PM on March 8, 2004


crazy people who have declared war on the United States

i missed the declaration of war by the now dead 10,000 children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers ... bush smoked in his rush to war.

i hope you aren't in the path of the next country that decides to follow george bush's lead and make preemptive war on your country.

you might want to check who has presided over the largest growth in federal governent since lyndon johnson ... also do a little review of what has actually happened with taxes here in the US - they have been shifted to the middle class through increases state and local level taxes, user fees etc... and to this and future generations via the budget deficit.

under george bush - my taxes have gone up, not down buddy.

swerdloff... where are you? bring that hat over here.
posted by specialk420 at 6:01 PM on March 8, 2004


hama7,


It would be interesting if you could come up with an example of idiotic spending that Kerry supports that exceeds Bush.

I assume you expect some knee-jerk reaction to "dour hypocritical socialist policies" when, in fact, socialism asks an important question regarding justice that capitalism cannot answer fully. We do not need to accept the answer that socialism offers, but it is a valid question.

"Kerry wants a weak and compliant America..."

I have seen no sign of this unless you equate it with a willingness to use diplomacy, which the Bush administration seems to recoil from. Guess what, opposition to the Iraq mess doesn't mean giving a free pass to terrorism. If anything, it means a adhering to fact-based use of force.
posted by john at 6:29 PM on March 8, 2004


you fools! ALL democrats are socialist.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:23 PM on March 8, 2004


The economy is fine, and it's not the government's responsibility to create jobs, so let's leave that to businesses.

None of those 21,000 new jobs came from the private sector. They were all the result of increased government sector hiring.

Bye bye, Kerry.

Send us a postcard from wherever you're headed, hama7.
posted by soyjoy at 9:22 PM on March 8, 2004


Let's take the Tax Cut Challenge: Can anyone who supports Bush's tax cut explain how much he or she's saving in each paycheck?
posted by subgenius at 11:02 PM on March 8, 2004


i remember when my parents used to warn me that liberal socialists would come and enforce their leftist agenda on children who were bad.

nightmares ensued.
posted by superchicken at 12:50 AM on March 9, 2004


forgive the ignorance, but what is an FPP?
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 1:38 AM on March 9, 2004


FPP = Frequently Partisan Polemic*

*infrequently, Front Page Post
posted by Opus Dark at 2:23 AM on March 9, 2004


oh good, the best I had worked out was Frequent Political Post
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 10:48 AM on March 9, 2004


« Older Get Paid to Listen to Telemarketers   |   No two moments are any more alike than two... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments