Re: POLITICS :-D

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

>

> ~~~~~~~> Any moment will probably pop up with links

> to prove it one way or the other. :-)

Sorry I'm late. I was working.

> You must be speaking of projected budgets, no? Isn't

> spending that has already occurred available in concrete

> figures, or at least estimated by independent organizations?

I assume that they get most of it by examining public records, so in theory

it's possible that the government could simply be falsifying documents, and

no one would be the wiser, but it seems unlikely. The Heritage Foundation

has a lot of good charts on the Federal budget:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/

For official figures, I usually turn to the Economic Report of the

President, which documents quite well the appalling rise in non-military

(and military) spending during Bush's term.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

> I don't think it's a matter of dispute that the size of the

> government increased more under Bush than it did under

> Clinton, and more under Reagan than it did under Clinton or

> , etc. But the flip side is that it increased under

> all of them, Republican or Democrat.

Actually, real per-capita spending (more meaningful than total spending)

under Clinton (and the opposition Congress) was nearly flat, and may even

have fallen a bit. As a percentage of GDP, it fell quite significantly.

> So you can't really say

> that Republicans spend more than Democrats, or vice versa,

> because spending has consistently increased, so who spends

> more is more of a question of time than party affiliation.

> Also, tthe party opposite the administration tends to gain in

> Congress mid-term, so if Democratic Presidents tend to have

> Republican Congresses, this would factor in to. For example,

> Clinton probably would have spent much, much more with a

> Democratic Congress.

As you probably know, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for

forty years prior to 1994, and Republicans had the Senate only during the

Reagan administration, so you can't really make any general statements about

interaction between Democratic presidents and Republican Congresses. At

most, we can say that spending didn't increase much while Clinton was in

office, that for most of this time Republicans controlled Congress, and that

on November 14, 1995, Jefferson Clinton delivired this speech, from

which you may draw your own conclusions:

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-14/transcripts/clinton.html

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Carol [mailto:cah@...]

>

> >>You must be speaking of projected budgets, no? Isn't spending that

> >>has

> already occurred available in concrete figures, or at least

> estimated by independent organizations?<<

>

> ~~~I don't think I've ever seen figures from independent

> organizations. Doesn't sound like you have either. :-)

> But, I have noticed that the figures given by Democrats are

> different from those given by Republicans for the same items.

Can you think of any examples off the top of your head?

[Guest guest]

I guess Saddam wasn't reading the NYT or Wall Street Journal either.

Darrell

_________________________________________

Most of them seemed genuinely convinced that Bush would not REALLY go

to war, that the inspectors would inspect and that would be that. Which goes to

show that they don't read the NYT or Wall Street Journal, I guess.

[Guest guest]

>>Can you think of any examples off the top of your head?<<

~~~Of course not - can we ever think of anything when we want to? :-) I can

think of some items, but no details. For instance, during the campaigns, there

were big differences between what each side said is being spent on the war in

Iraq. There were lots of things like that in this last election campaign. It's

not just spending either. For instance, the Democrats kept insisting that the

Republicans were responsible for the coming hike in Medicare premiums. However,

that hike was instituted in 1997 by an almost unamimous vote on both sides. I

really don't believe what either side says. And, it's almost impossible to find

the truth.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Thanks Heidi. I thought it was well done, regardless of the

conspiracy/cover-up message it portrays. Of course, these images are

indeed the real ones, you can search news archives, Google images of

9/11 Pentagon and see that indeed, there is no big jet visible. No

parts, no nothin.

This site has some big pictures of it:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

Deanna

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>

> >Isn't anyone going to watch the animated flick on the 757 hitting the

> >Pentagon? The music toward the end might have foul language, so be

> advised.

> >

> >http://www.slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

>

> Huh. Y'know I never thought of that.

>

> (my apologies for not watching it earlier: my DSL connection

> isn't working at the moment and I figured it wouldn't work

> well, but for those of you with slow connections, it runs

> fine once loaded, and worth the wait.)

>

>

> Heidi Jean

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS :-D

>

>

>

>ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>

>>

>> ~~~~> And by the way, I thought this was obvious as soon as they took

>> office.

>> I don't think this was a secret confined to the inner circle. I got this

>> impression from reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal,

>> etc, in

>> early 2001.

>>

>> Chris

>

>Isn't anyone going to watch the animated flick on the 757 hitting the

>Pentagon? The music toward the end might have foul language, so

>be advised.

>

>http://www.slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

>

>Deanna

>

The sad thing is that nothing surprises me anymore. My question about this

is, IF it's true that the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon (which I don't have

enough info to believe or to disbelieve) what happened to the missing 757

and all its passengers? Did our hard-earned tax dollars pay for their

anhiliation under this scenario?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/2004 10:08:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,

lynn@... writes:

>>> And Indiana

>>> with all of the corn and wheat.

>>>

>

> Hey, Illinois is blue. We grow PLENTY of corn here if you want it.

> And soybeans too (but who wants those? ) Believe it or not,

> there's a huge part of the state that isn't Chicago. We're as much

> cornbelt as Iowa or Indiana.

Ooh, ooh, Minnesota has corn and soybeans too. More dairy than Wisconsin

(who, of course, is also blue), and lots of yummy wild rice. Also, Canadian

geese by the thousands (which have livers that are higer in iron than any other

native American foodstuff).

We can make it!

Anabel

[Guest guest]

I am behind in the discussion (by a couple hundred postings), but has anyone

mentioned that MoveOn.org has a petition asking Congress to investigate the

vote?

Anabel

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/2004 2:58:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,

susanmemert@... writes:

Amen! Why haven't more people expressed this view?!

>

> Re: gay marriage, fwiw I think government should get entirely out

of

> the marriage business--any marriage, gay or straight. Marriage is

a

> religious institution. Let's return it to the churches,

synagogues,

> mosques, etc. and provide civil registration for families.

Probably because people haven't extended their minds to looking beyond the

definitions and labels that they know already. I remember the first time I

encountered the idea -- in a Catholic book during my (Catholic) marriage prep.

It

said that our faith tradition defines marriage in a particular way, but the

rest of society might choose to define it in an entirely different manner, and

that's ok. Also, I think that a lot of people haven't given up on being a

Christian nation, even though they see that the country is largely not

Christian.

Anabel

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/04 10:29:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> >>I don't think it's a matter of dispute that the size of the government

> increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton, and more under Reagan

> than it

> did under Clinton or , etc.

>

> ~~~I think all Republicans would disagree with you there.

____

~~~~~> I don't really see how it's a matter of opinion, nor something on

which any two people could " disagree. "

______

The Republicans'

> biggest gripe about Democrats is that government is too big under them, and

> they'd like to cut all the social programs Democrats have initiated.

Social

> programs make for big government.

______

~~~~~> As to the first point, that's something we all know, but what

Republicans use for rhetoric does not necessarily correspond to the results of

their

actions, as goes with Democrats.

As to the last point, obviously social programs make for bigger government,

ceteris paribus, than the absence of those programs, but Republicans not only

support many social programs (I'd guess the vast majority, in terms of monetary

volume, since they support the biggest and most expensive programs, like

Social Security, Medicare, the new prescription drug package, etc), but they

also

support wars, subsidies, and other programs that cost money. Social programs

do not make for a bigger government than a war or some other costly thing

does, if the war or other thing costs more than the social program. So the fact

that Democrats tend to support social programs and Republicans tend to not

support them (compared to Democrats) is irrelevant, without considering the size

of the programs and the size of the other programs that Republicans tend to

support over Democrats.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/04 11:26:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

lazlo75501@... writes:

> I guess Saddam wasn't reading the NYT or Wall Street Journal either.

_____

~~~~~~> I don't know whether he was reading them or not, but he obviously

reacted as if we were preparing for war, as he started disarming (and hiding,

perhaps) whatever weapons he had, and making concessions, like a madman when we

began moving troops over.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> I am behind in the discussion (by a couple hundred postings), but has

anyone

> mentioned that MoveOn.org has a petition asking Congress to investigate

the

> vote?

>

>

> Anabel

Greens and Libertarians investigating Ohio. This a few days old. They raised

the funds in one day. Democracy Now! had Cobb on today. Once Secretary of

State certifies Ohio the recount is going to be filed for. For any who

didn't realize it from the 2000 fiasco the electoral college does " not " vote

until Dec. 13 from the " official certified " results subject to recount.

Official results start to get counted 11-12 days " after " Nov 2. You'll see

from Cuyahoga County results below article why they're the focus of

questioning.

Wanita

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-13/11002865461\

43660.xml & storylist=cleveland

Third-party leaders collecting money for Ohio recount

11/12/2004, 2:04 p.m. ET

By CONNIE MABIN

The Associated Press

CLEVELAND (AP) - Two third-party candidates for president say they plan to

seek a recount of Ohio votes.

Advertisement

Libertarian Badnarik and Green Party candidate Cobb said they

want to ensure that all legitimate votes are counted properly.

Meanwhile, counties that were confused about whether to validate provisional

ballots that don't have voters' dates of birth on them were told Friday by

the secretary of state's office in a conference call to allow those ballots.

Cuyahoga County elections board director Vu said there had been

confusion over whether missing birth dates made the ballots invalid.

" We're counting those now, " he said.

Provisionals were cast by people who say they are registered to vote but

whose names did not appear on rolls on Election Day. Ohio election officials

are now processing the state's 155,337 provisional ballots. If the

registration information is verified, the ballots will be counted by board

members by the Dec. 1 deadline.

The count is not expected to change the outcome of the election, which gave

President Bush the election with an unofficial lead of 136,000 votes over

Sen. Kerry.

Regarding the recount, the Badnarik and Cobb would have to ask each of

Ohio's 88 county election boards for a recount and pay $10 for each

precinct, said Lee, a spokesman for Secretary of State J.

Blackwell.

Gordon, Badnarik campaign spokesman, said Friday that the campaigns

understood the policy and were planning to raise the $110,000 needed.

In a joint statement, the candidates said they were concerned about reports

of problems with Ohio's voting process.

" Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put

our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to

vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and

accurately, " the statement said.

The campaigns, voting rights groups and other organizations were planning a

Saturday meeting in Columbus to discuss election concerns.

An automatic recount would be required in Ohio if the difference between two

candidates in less than one quarter of 1 percent, Lee said. Bush led Kerry

by about 3 percent in Ohio, winning 51 percent of the vote, according to the

unofficial results.

Also, some Spanish-speaking residents in Cuyahoga County said they

encountered a number of problems on Election Day, including some that

prevented votes from being cast.

A lack of Spanish-speaking poll workers, no Spanish ballots and names

missing from voter lists were among the complaints.

Vu said he wants to make voting accessible to as many people as possible and

hiring poll workers who speak other languages is a priority.

Also this week, a Cincinnati activist who's sued the NFL and her county

prosecutor asked a state appeals court to order Blackwell to allow the

public and reporters to watch the official vote counting at county elections

boards.

There were 92,672 fewer votes for president than ballots cast statewide, and

it is unlikely that so many people deliberately skipped that question, said

in a complaint filed with the state appeals court in Hamilton

County.

State attorneys have not yet received the complaint, mailed on Tuesday, Lee

said.

" As with any election, the secretary of state's office and county boards of

election will comply fully with the law, " Lee said.

sued this summer to remove Prosecutor Mike from office when he

revealed he'd had an affair with an employee. He removed himself as a

candidate from the November election. last month appealed a judge's

decision to dismiss the lawsuit and order her to pay all court costs.

also replaced a county commissioner as lead plaintiff in a lawsuit

challenging the Cincinnati Bengals' lease for the stadium that county

taxpayers paid to build. The county now has replaced her as plaintiff.

*__

Secretary of state: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/

Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast

Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast

Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast

Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast

Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast

Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast

Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast

Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast

Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast

Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast

Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast

Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast

Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast

North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast

Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast

Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast

Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast

Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast

South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast

Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast

University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast

Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast

Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast

Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast

Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast

Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast

Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast

Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top