The shrubs home state GOP platform and what you may be voting for...

[WDWHound]

For those who feel the endangered species act issue only applies to large corporations, I know 3000 farmers who would disagree with you...

"In Austin, Texas, 3,000 farmers and other Texans marched in 1994 to denounce the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for its proposal to quarantine 800,000 acres of land across 33 Texas counties to protect the golden-cheeked warbler. Property values dived by over $300 million in Travis County alone after the FWS designated much of the county as "protected habitat" for endangered species. "

This was taken from this link.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0698d.asp

I remember this march. I know people who are effected. The quarantine was put in place and backed by the supreme court on June 29, 1995. Nothing has been done to reimburse the farmers since then. These people are still hosed. The endangered species act needs to be fixed to protect the rights of these people or reimburse them for their loss. Trying to spin this as an attempt to protect corporations is mearly allowing private citizens to suffer to promote an agenda.

 

[wvrevy]

Fine, I'll grant that, being closer to this issue, you are more acquainted with the intimate details. However:

Originally posted by WDWHound
I remember this march. I know people who are effected. Nothing has been done since then. These people are still hosed. The endangered species act needs to be fixed to protect the rights of these people or reimburse them for their loss. Trying to spin this as an attempt to protect corporations is mearly allowing private citizens to suffer to promote an agenda.

1) My only agenda in supporting this act is the protection of wildlife from human destruction. Period. Call me "tree hugger" all you want, but I actually do believe that other species have a right to exist besides mankind. Yes, that includes times when it inconveniences us a bit.

2) How do you propose the government pay for this reimbursement ?

As for that link, it is entirely biased against the ESA. For a look at it from another perspective, try this link:Making Innocent Species the Enemy

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Fine, I'll grant that, being closer to this issue, you are more acquainted with the intimate details. However:



1) My only agenda in supporting this act is the protection of wildlife from human destruction. Period. Call me "tree hugger" all you want, but I actually do believe that other species have a right to exist besides mankind. Yes, that includes times when it inconveniences us a bit.

2) How do you propose the government pay for this reimbursement ?

As for that link, it is entirely biased against the ESA. For a look at it from another perspective, try this link:Making Innocent Species the Enemy

1) Its more than an inconvience. In many cases the losses involved are huge. I never called you a tree hugger. I am actually in favor of preserving habitats. Its a worthy goal, but the ends do not justify the means the way it is done today. If someone came to you and you said could never sell your home for more than 1/3 of what you paid for it, you might see that as more than an "inconvienience". That is the effect this act is having here for many.

2) That is a reasonable question. I would be infavor of actually buying the land and making it a wildlife preserve (since the ESA effectly creates a wildlife preserve in this case anyway). Where do we get the money? I don't nkow, but society does not have the right to sieze property. The rights to private property are insured by the constitution. I personally would be willing to pay a biut more intaxes for pay for this, as I would benefit as a member of society, but I do acknowledge that the republican party would probably not buy into this. Still, a way must be found. We cant just keep trashing rights of our citizens like this forever.

Oh, by the way, I agree the link is biased, which is why I only quoted the historical portion on the march itself. I included the link to show where I got my numbers from.

 

[wvrevy]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had called me that...I've just been labled that so many times, I automatically assume anyone disagreeing with me on an environmental issue is automatically thinking it

It's a complicated issue, I'll grant you that. Still, I am 100% convinced that the plank in the platform is calling for the ESA to be repealed in it's entirety, not just modified to make it more user friendly and correct possible injustices that occur under it's umbrella of power. I don't think there is a law on the books that should be completely impregnable to any debate about it's being changed to make it fair to everyone involved, from the constitution itself on down. But again, that's not how I read that in the OP.

JMO....Thanks for the discussion.

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Look at it this way, after November no one will be calling Bush anything. The Dem's will be more than happy to concentrate on a new President and look to the future. This would be unlike what the Democrats are still putting up with years after President Clinton left office.

For every "shrub" post you can find, I can find 10 "slick willie" comments. I wonder why Republicans only seem to be offended when the name calling is directed at bush?

Perhaps the right should have considered the precedent they were setting when they decided that there were no limits on just how insulting and disrespectful one could be when they didn't like the guy in office.

I'm sure you never engaged in such childish antics, but plenty did and still do. I guess it's just a case of what goes around, comes around.

As you suggested I did a search on "slick willie" and then a search on "shrub" - choosing exact phrase only and the results may surprise you. There are 23 topics with slick willie in them while shrub appears in 189 topics. I did not register or post here til 2001 so I have no idea how bad it got during the Clinton heyday. I only know I wouldn't have posted disrespectful remarks. That seems to be beyond the capability of some here; so be it.

Ooops, edited to change my dis registration to 2001 - my Disney trip was 2002.

 

[peachgirl]

As you suggested I did a search on "slick willie" and then a search on "shrub" - choosing exact phrase only and the results may surprise you. There are 23 topics with slick willie in them while shrub appears in 189 topics.

Actually, it doesn't surprise me. Since "slick willie" would only be used when referring to President Clinton and "shrub" is a word that is used for more than referring to President Bush, it's not possible just to do a simple search and get an accurate picture.

I did a quick look and out of the first 3 pages on a "shrub" search, nearly half have nothing to do with politics.


Also, doing a search by threads doesn't give you an accurate picture of how many times a word or phrase was used within a thread. You just know it was used at least once.

I didn't suggest using a search for those very reasons. I said for every post you can find using "shrub", I can find 10 using "slick willie". Of course, I meant used as a way of insulting either Bush or Clinton. Btw, if you add insults to Kerry to the mix, it really changes things. I still stand by that.

Considering that Bush is in office and Clinton is not, I'm amazed that there would even be a contest between which man was being called names the most. You'd think after 4 years, people would move on.

I only know I wouldn't have posted disrespectful remarks. That seems to be beyond the capability of some here; so be it.

I don't think name calling or ad hominem attacks reflect well for either side.

Could either of you direct me to a post of yours where you've responded to someone chastizing them for insulting a Democrat or liberal?

I take you both at your word that you don't engage in such tactics. However, it would be interesting to know if you are bothered enough by insults from the right to call a poster on it.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Granted....But again, why put that plank in the platform if it is nothing more than rhetoric, with no intention of doing more about it ? And again, how do you differentiate between "long term" multi-lingual instruction and "short term" ? At what point are the children of immigrants going to be forced to try to tread water with kids that have been speaking the language their entier lives ?

I think Texans are genuinely frightened that traditional American culture is giving way to Mexican culture to a larger degree every day. There's nothing wrong with Mexican culture, mind you. But if you preferred American culture, you might feel like a stranger in a strange land and wonder where the America you remember went. Again, I don't think they want Mexicans, etc., to stop "being Mexican."

More to the point. I think they want to homogenize (sp?) the American public and government while maintaining full rights of people to be who they want to be in private or even in communities.

I think are point of contention surrounds he language barrier. I think English should be required learning. Period. I think we should assist anyone that we allow in this country who does not know the language to learn the language. Bi-lingual short-term education is fine. But, I think we go too far to make it so foreigners can come into the country and go through 12 yrs of public education without having to speak a word of English.

'Course, in my neck of the woods, I'm not exposed to this issue firsthand so my viewpoint will be skewed differently when compared to those more "in the know".

That's fine, and I think John Kerry is doing just that. However, the president and VP most certainly are not doing so, so why should I ? I'm not running for public office, nor am I asking anyone to vote for me. I'm engaging in political debate on a public website.

I'll lean on the principle of leading by example again. It's not a political thing, or running for office thing. If lefties want to call me an Evil Conservative, I would be lowering myself to their level by using such terms as "bleeding heart Liberal". It's a policy of life for me. If I'm called a Bible-thumper, I don't call my detractors "the soulless bound for Hell." I don't believe in insults. If I insult in return, I consider it lowering myself to thier level.

First of all, I doubt seriously you could "put me down", as I have quite a bit more going for me in the self-respect department than what some yahoo I'll likely never meet says about me on a public message board. That said, were you to insult me personally, I would simply refer it to the board administrators, since that kind of thing is against board rules.

Goodness, I don't mean personal insults. That's much more unacceptable. Not what I meant. What I mean is this. I'm a conservative. I'm not Republican, but tends towrds Republican candidates. When you use the term Repugnican, no matter the context you were thinking, I see it as a general insult to anyone who could possibly vote for a Republican. It can be interpreted as a general disdain for anyone on the right. It, by default, puts yourself on a higher pedestal than righties as if to say you are obviously superior to "us". While that may not be your intent, that is the effect. By your explanation, I see that is not what you meant at all. Consider me now fully informed. But I hope you understand what I was thinking now.

Anybody that's actually read my posting knows that I'm not just going on "idealogy", unless they simply are accusing me of it because they believe differently. If I don't know enough about a subject to have what I would consider to be an informed opinion, I'll say so. I see absolutely NO difference in my posting here from the left and someone like Hannity broadcasting to millions of people from the right.

I wasn't accusing you of being ideological. I was saying that it is very easy to take the step from seeing ideological terms and thinking you're an ideologue. There are new posters here ALL of the time. Some will be from the right. Some will see your posts. And some of them are going to say the same things to you over and over and over again. And you'll state over and over again that you don't want to explain yourself again to someone who doesn't know you. You want to put this issue to bed so you don't have to waste your time on it anymore? The only way to do it is a.) ignore those posts, or
b.) refrain from making yourself a target from ideological attacks even though you clearly aren't just being ideological.

And think about it. You use Hannity as an example. You obviously feel that his ideological talk is alienating and that he'll never score points with the left at large. Well, if you are using similar language "because Hannity does it," how effective do you think you are? Why stoop to Hannity's level?

Let me make this clear, other than one repugnant poster I've gone around with on here, I have never ONCE insulted someone on this board personally. Yes, i've attacked their positions on various topics, but that does NOT constitute a personal attack. My use of terms like "repugnicans" has been explained before...it refers to a certain select group of people on the idealogical right, NOT ALL REPUBLICANS. That select group would be the hypocrites that accuse Kerry of "flip flopping" while ignoring the same from their candidate. It includes the people that have never ONCE given any reason to vote for Bush, but are ever-ready with an attack on John Kerry, usually false.

Since I'm unfamiliar with your terms (despite the amount of posts I've seen from you) and how you define them, it is easy to understand why I cried "ad honinem", is it not? If I saw you for the first time on the Dis and saw "repugnican", what do you think I would assume about you without you having to explain yourself AGAIN? Without meaning to, you draw a target on yourself. Again, that is unfortunate. I've seen you around and know there's a brain behind the keyboard in West-By-God-Virginny. But insults, even if duly deserved, do nothing to improve the image of yourself as an intelligent person.
Mind you, I really don't mean to pick on you. This is for both sides. Bush supporters that remark about "Kerry's Waffle House" etc. also do themselves a disservice. There's a thread here somewhere about "white trash" behavior. It post has nothing to do with race or income and I called them on it. Insulting terms, no matter what the reason or justification, does nothing to add to the POV or intelligence of any poster that uses them.

I'm sorry, but the whole thing (complaining) strikes me as a diversionary tactic when people can't back up their arguments. Could I get a better response by dialing down the rhetoric when disagreeing with them ? Maybe, but I doubt it. There are any number of posters on here with whom I respectfully disagree most of the time (jrydberg comes immediately to mind), but that strike me as willing to listen to reasoned argument that they disagree with. Those are the truly enjoyable exchanges for me, whether one of us bends a bit towards the other's stance or we simply agree to disagree.

Not being diversionary at all. I don't often shy from arguments and usually apologize when I get egg on my face. I also enjoy my exchanges with you and others from the other side of the aisle. I am also willing to listen to the other side, In fact, I even changed my stance on the SBV people and told those that I've spoken to that Hannity has got this point wrong and, knowingly or not, is lying. (Yes, I'm a Hannity fan. It doesn't show, does it? ) All thanks to my CB/DB friends on the left at the Dis!

I think people just need to get it through their heads that disagreement is not a "personal attack".

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I never meant to say that I thought you were personally attacking me. My issue wasn't even about disagreeing with you. It was about less than diginified terms, deserved or not, being used to describe any group of people.

(Sorry for the long post...just thought all that needed to be said)

Not a problem! As you can see, verbosity is my middle name!

 

[Sandy V.]

Well said, Jason.

 

[treesinger]

Don't know if I have the time, but I'l try and answer the Mass Dems party platform where there are more specific stances. Some I'll skip because they are just too darned long and will overwhelm any discussion we hope to have here.

We celebrate the diversity of our Commonwealth and country, and we oppose discrimination in any form it takes. We are proud to stand as the Party of, and the Party for, all people, without regard to race, gender, religion, language, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, economic circumstance or other characteristics. We have been, and will be, the Party that is the defender of individual rights, while remaining the strong champion for the common good. We restate our support for Affirmative Action, to ensure equal opportunity for all citizens.

Agree, except for affirmative action. AA is, to me, reverse discrimination. I think jobs should be merit-based only. But no one should be discriminated against in any way otherwise.

We call for increased professionalism and accountability in our foster care system, improved adoption procedures, and vigorous enforcement of child support.

Agree.

We believe that mothers and fathers deserve the full backing of our society, including in the workplace. We support the existing federal Family & Medical Leave Act, but recognize it does not go far enough in meeting the needs of all working families because many cannot afford to take unpaid time off or work for employers not covered by its mandate.

A worthy goal, but I disagree. I have to imagine that if we fully fund every program meant to help every family to its fullest, the cost would be very prohibitive.

We support legislation to end unjust gender discrimination in insurance terms and rates.

Disagree. If men or women are shown to be higher or lower claimants for insurance, the rate should be adjusted accordingly. It sounds fair to me.

We believe that commitments to the financial security and physical well-being of older Americans are core values of our Party, and we oppose all proposals that would undermine or dismantle Medicare and Social Security.

Agree, though there are ways to improve both. (No, I don't know what. But there's alwayscroom for improvement)

We recognize that seniors are too often the targets of telemarketing fraud, and we urge the passage of legislation establishing tough standards for telemarketers and stiff penalties for violations.

Agree.

We support equal treatment of domestic partners in health insurance, pension access, and inheritance, and we support the provision of domestic partnership benefits in the private and public sectors, including for both state and federal employees

*snip*
Agree. I think gays should be able to hold "marriage status", with all of the legal trappings included and that they be granted the same rights as married couples.

We support programs expediting the acquisition of English language skills

Agree.

We oppose attempts to impose English-only standards in public communication.

Were it to say "government communication", I would disagree.

Darn, I covered so little, but I must go.

 

[Paradise]

Sorry, but I'll vote for Kerry and the Dems! If you agree with the Reps. platform, that's fine-I'm not judging you. But I just don't get how a party that is for "less government because the people know how best to govern themselves" can also be for poking their noses in to marragies, same-sex relationships, and doctors offices because the "poor imoral sinners don't know any better". But hey, what do I know?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[treesinger]

While I agree with you, I do still see the difference. When it comes to homosexuality, it is a matter of RELIGIOUS conviction, not STATE as far as legislation is concerned. I'm not saying it's right to do. But what I AM saying is that they can maintain both points of view because they come from different frames of reference.