[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Heck at the DNC they just rounded any opposition in a cage and called it a "free speech zone".

It looked like Bush changed his route through town here to avoid the Kerry signs downtown I imagine. I'll let ya know tomorrow for sure.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Used to be dear, used to be!

Ummm no, it is a Republic

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

Ummm no, it is a Republic

Oh great! Next you'll be pointing out that we don't even have a Constitutional Right to vote for president!

People are more comfortable not knowing what our system really is!

[bassetman]

WI and MN tie for top ACT scores this year. We'll see how that plays out in the voting both!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by bassetman

All in all, I have to admite it was a bit exciting to see and hear the prez, even if I don't like his policies!

BTW I was about 35 feet from his bus.

Obviously the Secret Service suffered an enormous breakdown in security.

[xico]

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50994 >
===============================

REPORT SHOWS BUSH IGNORING CHEMICAL SECURITY

President Bush this week said, "We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country."[1] But according to a comprehensive new report, the Bush administration has not only failed to safeguard vulnerable terrorist targets at home, it has actively blocked government initiatives to safeguard the most dangerous materials that could be used in a terrorist attack.

According to the nonpartisan Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, the Bush administration has blocked an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative to impose security measures for extremely hazardous chemicals stored at power plants across the country. As a result, some 3.5 million people living near these non-nuclear power plants continue to face the danger that a terrorist attack could send a cloud of toxic and lethal gas into their neighborhoods. The report also details how opposition from chemical manufacturers has derailed a bill in Congress, the Chemical Security Act, which would have required facilities using the most dangerous chemicals to consider safer technologies and use them where practicable.[2]

Since 2000, the chemical industry has donated more than $17 million to President Bush and Republican congressional candidates.[3] These companies have also given more than $6 million in soft money to the Republican National Committee.[4]

See the full report here, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50995.

Sources:

1. "President's Remarks in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania ," The White House, 8/17/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50996.
2. "Unnecessary Dangers: Emergency Chemical Release Hazards at Power Plants," Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, July, 2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50995.
3. "Chemical & Related Manufacturing: Long-Term Contribution Trends ," Center for Responsive Politics, 07/5/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50997.
4. "Soft Money for Misc Business in 2002," OpenSecrets.Org, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1685358&l=50998.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion.


===========================================================

Subscribe to the Daily Mislead! Go to http://www.misleader.org and enter
your e-mail address in the "Receive the Daily Mislead" box in the
top-left corner of the page.

To unsubscribe send an email to latest@daily.misleader.org with only the
word "remove" in the subject line of your e-mail, or visit
http://daily.misleader.org/unsubscribe/ and follow the instructions
listed there.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Obviously the Secret Service suffered an enormous breakdown in security.

Obviously! I as a normal citizen should have be banned from seeing him!

[Stoner]

Republican breaks with Bush, sends out letters to constituents that the Iraqi war was a mistake.

USAToday

Retiring GOP Rep.: Iraq war unjustified

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A top Republican congressman has broken from his party in the final days of his House career, saying he believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified and that the situation there has deteriorated into "a dangerous, costly mess."
"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb ., wrote in a letter to constituents.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action ," he said.

Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is stepping down after 13 terms to become the president of the Asia Foundation, effective Sept. 1.

The letter was reported by the Lincoln Journal Star in its Wednesday editions.

In 2002, Bereuter had spoken out in support of a House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.

Bereuter didn't answer questions Wednesday about the letter, but the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said it was an indication of growing credibility problems facing the Bush administration.

"Anytime a member of the president's party directly challenges the president — on any issue, especially war — it's notable," said Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said, however: "We feel good going into the convention that our party stands for a strong national defense and a forward-looking consensus on how to win the war on terror."

As for Bush's reaction, Holt said, "I don't believe the president has made any comments on the letter. Obviously, Congressman Bereuter has every right to communicate with his constituents and to share his views."

President Bush has continued to argue the war was justified because Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.

Most Republicans and top administration officials say the war was justified even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

However, after a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded in early July that intelligence agencies had provided false assessments of the Iraqi threat before the war, the panel's Republican chairman — Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas — said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.

Roberts said without an immediate threat that Saddam had and was trying to get weapons of mass destruction, military action against Iraq still could have been justified on humanitarian grounds, but that the battle plan might have been different from a full-scale invasion.

Bereuter said in addition to "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence," the Bush administration made several other errors in going to war.

"From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force," he said. "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

Bereuter said as a result of the war, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. — who also has been a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war — is nonetheless co-chairing Bush's presidential campaign in Nebraska. "The reality is that we have 141,000 Americans fighting and dying in Iraq, and we must support them," he said.

(bolding mine)

[Stoner]

For a Bushism straight from the horse's ~~@ss?~~~ follow this link





LINK





smilin' Jack

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

For a Bushism straight from the horse's @ss?~ follow this link
LINK
smilin' Jack

Yeah, saw that yesterday in a Basset post. Made me feel all warm, fuzzy and safe knowing we have an imbecile as our leader!

[Stoner]

Credit to bassetman ____

No confusion of who leads this country

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

For a Bushism straight from the horse's ~~@ss?~~~ follow this link
smilin' Jack

well...i'm glad you 'splained that to me

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by bassetman

BTW I was about 35 feet from his bus.

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Obviously the Secret Service suffered an enormous breakdown in security.

Originally Posted by bassetman

Obviously! I as a normal citizen should have be banned from seeing him!

I think I've discovered the flaw in your argument!

[GoneForNow]

9-to-5, R.I.P.

19 August 2004
The Wall Street Journal


(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

The Bush campaign has finally started laying out its second-term economic agenda, talking up an "ownership society" in which Americans will have greater control over everything from their Social Security accounts to health care. We're happy to see included a proposal that can help both the economy and hard-pressed parents: flex time.
The idea is that workers and their employers ought to be able to enter voluntarily into work schedules that benefit both sides -- for example, allowing employees to work 80 hours in any combination over a two-week period. A busy mom might work 60 hours the week her husband can pick the kids up from school, but only 20 hours the next when she takes over child duty.
Such flexibility should be welcome in today's complex social world, yet it's still illegal under federal law. In 1938 Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, designed to protect workers from abusive employers; it mandated that a working schedule of more than 40 hours in any one week had to count as overtime. While the law may have helped employees in the 1940s, today it's a straightjacket on busy families. Many parents would prefer more time with their kids to a few more dollars of overtime, if only the law gave them the opportunity.
Just how many people would benefit? According to government statistics, 67% of households were "traditional" -- defined as having a stay-at-home mother -- when the FLSA was designed. In 1950, single mothers made up fewer than 3% of families. Today nearly two-thirds of married couples have both husband and wife in the work force, while single mothers run 12% of family households. Moreover, 75% of these single mothers have school-age children and hold a job.
So it is hardly a surprise that polls show Americans overwhelmingly support flex-time options. A survey by the Employment Policy Foundation found that some 75% favored having a choice between overtime cash wages or paid leave. If provided that option, 57% of respondents -- and 73% of women -- said they would prefer to take time off in any one week rather than seek overtime. And 65% favored any change in the law that would allow more flexible work schedules.
As it happens, a sizable minority of Americans have been using flex time since 1978: federal employees. Currently, some 47% of full-time, hourly federal employees work a "compressed" schedule, in which shorter hours in one week can be made up the next. The Employment Policy Foundation estimates that 13 million to 20 million private-sector employees would take advantage of this type of arrangement.
Unfortunately, certain politicians have decided that what's good enough for public employees is too good for the private work force. Senate Democrats, bowing to unions that are militant about preserving only overtime, have blocked every attempt at making the Fair Labor Standards Act more flexible. In 1997, then-Senator John Ashcroft offered legislation known as the Family Friendly Workplace Act that would have allowed flexible biweekly schedules or flexible hours. Ted Kennedy, the supposed patron saint of single moms, led the fight to kill it. And the AFL-CIO has since made flex time a litmus test issue in deciding which candidates to support.
One reason the U.S. navigated the recent economic downturn better than, say, Europe, is because flexible labor laws helped companies use workers more efficiently. Flex time is a crucial part of creating a 21st-century work force in which both companies and workers can adapt to changing technology and shifting family duties and build work schedules that are best for all concerned.
We suspect this issue is also a political winner. We haven't heard much from John Kerry on this subject. But someone should ask the Democratic nominee if he's against giving private workers the same choice that federal employees have to better control their valuable time.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Stoner

No confusion of who leads this country