LIVE from the RNC in NYC

[RoadDawg]

Just wondering if these guys have anymore truth then the Anti Kerry Vets. Yahoo Article

[PissedGodzilla]

Transcript of the 60 minutes news report on new info out about President Bush's Service.

here is the specific article I was talking about regarding 60 minutes, in case you were wondering what I was talking about.

[1stdeadeye]

Why are we talking about Vietnam and not Bush's 4 years in office and Kerry's 20+ in the Senate?

Also if Kerry is so confidant in his bid for office, why did he not resign to campaign full time as Bob Dole did?

[RoadDawg]

Why are we talking about Vietnam and not Bush's 4 years in office and Kerry's 20+ in the Senate?

Also if Kerry is so confidant in his bid for office, why did he not resign to campaign full time as Bob Dole did?

Why stop at Bush's 4 years in office? Why not go deeper into his Governor of Texas days? After all 4 years of President won't quite equal all that can happen over 20 years in the Senate.

[FactsOfLife]

I was wondering if FoL and gtrsi saw the news article about the new allegations against President Bush's record on 60 Minutes tonight? do you guys have any comment? I'm not trying to incite anything, I just wanted your opinion...

My opinion it seems, was well founded. The documents seem to be FORGERIES!


Bwaaaaa haa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa nice try Kerry party et al....

[Kaiser Bob]

Bush hasnt done the best job at balancing the budget... all the spending he has done can be justified sure, but you can't do things like cut taxes and spend massive amounts on the military. Now our deficit is growing, so whats going to be cut? Oh, anybody have the reason why Bush decided not to bring america into that global initiative to cut pollution?

BTW, Kerry kinda creeps me out, hopefully Mccain runs in 2008

[FactsOfLife]

Bush hasnt done the best job at balancing the budget... all the spending he has done can be justified sure, but you can't do things like cut taxes and spend massive amounts on the military. Now our deficit is growing, so whats going to be cut? Oh, anybody have the reason why Bush decided not to bring america into that global initiative to cut pollution?

BTW, Kerry kinda creeps me out, hopefully Mccain runs in 2008

War time budgets have always run into deficit spending. Kinda hard to avoid it if you're going to fund the troops properly.

I assume you're asking about the Kyoto Treaty? The general reason behind our unwillingness to sign that is that it basically allows everyone else but us to poolute like crazy, ie thrid world countries but puts huge burdens on our businesses. Not too mention the fact that it puts parts of our economy and the businesses that drive under the direct control of foreign powers.

ANd yeah everytime I see a pic of Kerry I can't get Lurch out of my head...

[Kaiser Bob]

War time budgets have always run into deficit spending. Kinda hard to avoid it if you're going to fund the troops properly.

I assume you're asking about the Kyoto Treaty? The general reason behind our unwillingness to sign that is that it basically allows everyone else but us to poolute like crazy, ie thrid world countries but puts huge burdens on our businesses. Not too mention the fact that it puts parts of our economy and the businesses that drive under the direct control of foreign powers.

ANd yeah everytime I see a pic of Kerry I can't get Lurch out of my head...

I'll just assume that means that the treaty has less restrictions on factory output of pollutants, not total nationwide amounts. How much pollution do the 4 poorly maintained factories emit compared to thousands of carefully regulated factories? Isn't it kind of relative anyway? Either way, i do understand why we wouldent sign by the last point, but I would like to see whoever the president put resources toward developing better energy technologies. Im actually surprised that Bush didnt march into alaska, and tear the hell up out of the protected land for more domestic oil.

[GT]

I'll just assume that means that the treaty has less restrictions on factory output of pollutants, not total nationwide amounts.

Bob,
as an environmental dood I can tell you that thier is a huge expense in any environmental/safety program. Its been awhile since i have looked at kyoto but would be more than willing to run policy by you at our next pb get togther.

Budget,
Fact of the matter is we have spent alot of money because we are fighting three wars, afgan, iraq, and here securing the US. If Bush didnt lower taxes the debit would be even larger.

I was wondering if FoL and gtrsi saw the news article about the new allegations against President Bush's record on 60 Minutes tonight? do you guys have any comment? I'm not trying to incite anything, I just wanted your opinion...

PG,
Here is the big problem, or something that raises a red flag for me, Barnes is a huge dem. Here is what bothers me, Texas, back in the day of Barnes was a big democratic state, not republican. So this raises the question, why would a promonate Dem do a republican's son a big favor as guard service? Something just doesnt add up.

Here is the real problem with the campign
the Kerry camp keeps attatcking Bush's vietnam days trying to invaldate him as commander and chief. Does anyone question that Bush has no porblem kicking the crap out of terrorists?


Lather,

Well if it wasnt your intent then I apologize.
but if I met any one of them in person (if anyone ever came out to Hawaii) the beer would be on me as it is nothing personal.

Same here. I think its hard to communicate some of these tough issues over a text medium. So much of ones communcation for these bigg issues are non verbal. BTW: You can talk as much as you want as long as you keep handing me beers , If I have enough I meet even agree!

jb

[FactsOfLife]

I'll just assume that means that the treaty has less restrictions on factory output of pollutants, not total nationwide amounts. How much pollution do the 4 poorly maintained factories emit compared to thousands of carefully regulated factories? Isn't it kind of relative anyway? Either way, i do understand why we wouldent sign by the last point, but I would like to see whoever the president put resources toward developing better energy technologies. Im actually surprised that Bush didnt march into alaska, and tear the hell up out of the protected land for more domestic oil.

Ecept it does come down to which side you want to control the country, the private sector or the government?

Government regulation is a necessary evil, however, despite what a lot of environmentalists would have everyone believe, the VAST majority of companies are promoting clean air far and way better than the regulations enforce.

As has always been the case, the market decides what energy sources it wants to use. Because oil is still generally available and easy to get and pay for, the status quo remains for fossil fuels and the vehicles that use them.

Alternative fuel source vehicles like the upcoming hydrogen powered cars lack the infrastructure to be widely used. Where do you fill one up? If you think gas is explosive, try hydrogen!

The push for electric cars only puts the pollutants further upstream where the power is really produced. Often at coal fired power plants or nuclear facilities. It does little to aleviate the inherant problem of pollution, it only makes the electric car owner feel better.

Now fuel cell cars may indeed be the future, and there are even ideas floating around of broadcast power.

But to let some foreign entity decide what an acceptable level of polluting in this country while basicall giving free passes to countries like Mexico is unacceptable, both in terms of meddling in domestic policy and the level of pollutant released by those countries less regulated by the treaty,

And yes, I would have already been in Anwarr(sp?) drilling for oil. I hear a LOT of talk about less dependency on foreign oil, but then it comes down to it. no one wants to upset the caribou!

[Koosh]

The push for electric cars only puts the pollutants further upstream where the power is really produced. Often at coal fired power plants or nuclear facilities. It does little to aleviate the inherant problem of pollution, it only makes the electric car owner feel better.

It does more then just help the owner feel better... Well at least the gas/hybrid cars anyway. Pushin 60 miles a gallon, it helps them at the pump too!

[Miscue]

We need to use Ethanol - personally I think that's the future fuel that most of us will go to. I'd like to see some Ethanol pumps.

[GT]

Alternative fuel source vehicles like the upcoming hydrogen powered cars lack the infrastructure to be widely used. Where do you fill one up? If you think gas is explosive, try hydrogen!

hydrogen can be used safely. Gasoline is a very dangerous substance, just because you use it everyday doesnt make it less dangerous. Full eletrics and hybrids are a joke. The only reason they are affordible is becasue of governemnt subsidy. In all honesty the real issue is consumption. The porblem is that everyone wants big bad trucks and SUV's. Go back 10-15 years when Honda was making gas powered cars that got nearly 50 mpg. Those numbers can rarely be obtained now because of the shear weight of vehicals, from a safety perspective. Also heavier vehicals create more ware on the road.

Also keep in mind that we will ALWAYS be dependent on oil. If I am not mistaken crude is used to make a variety of other products, some plastics and rubbers.

From my perspective there is an easy fix, tax the hell out of "heavy" vehicals and gas guzzlers. I guess I am alittle liberal

[Miscue]

We'll be ok once Mr. Fusion hits the market.

[Kaiser Bob]

if its between saving the caribou or getting closer to 1.00 a gallon, sorry caribou