Presidential election. Republicans bulk mailing

[Almighty Colin]

Republicans bulk mailing campaign hitting South Florida pretty hard. Asking for donations. I've received two letters in two weeks from different Republican support groups.

Much like the mid-term elections, the democrats aren't in my mail nor are they on my phone.

Interesting.

[Carrie]

I am constantly receiving mailers from "leftist" groups asking for money, but to date haven't noticed any mailers from the DNC or candidates themselves.
Nor have I received any from the RNC or Bush.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 20 2004, 01:42 PM
I am constantly receiving mailers from "leftist" groups asking for money, but to date haven't noticed any mailers from the DNC or candidates themselves.
Nor have I received any from the RNC or Bush.
Very interesting. Maybe it comes down to how organized and well-funded local election support groups are.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 20 2004, 01:48 PM

[Carrie]

I'm in VA, we've had our Democratic primary vote, and currently we have a Democratic Governor, if that helps shed any interesting light on things.

It might have something to do too with Jeb being Republican or the screwed-up mess that went down in FL during the last election.

[TheEnforcer]

Report them and see if you can get their asses handed to them under their own spam law!! :lol:

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 20 2004, 10:42 AM
I am constantly receiving mailers from "leftist" groups asking for money
What sort of "leftist" groups?

[Peaches]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Feb 20 2004, 06:55 PM
Report them and see if you can get their asses handed to them under their own spam law!! :lol:
It sounds like it's via the USPS. B)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Feb 20 2004, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Feb 20 2004, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Feb 20 2004, 06:55 PM
Report them and see if you can get their asses handed to them under their own spam law!! :lol:
It sounds like it's via the USPS. B)[/b][/quote]
Yes

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Feb 20 2004, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Feb 20 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Feb 20 2004, 10:42 AM
I am constantly receiving mailers from "leftist" groups asking for money
What sort of "leftist" groups?[/b][/quote]
Let's see... the ACLU, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, some group that I don't even pay attention to because they always put "BUSH WANTS TO BAN ABORTIONS" on the front of it in big red letters (lots of big red letters on leftist mailings), etc
I just threw a bunch out or I'd quote them verbatim for ya.

[sarettah]

ACLU, Greenpeace and Sierra Club are "Leftist" groups ?????? :zoinks:

Damn, does Rush Limbaugh know he's being assisted by a bunch of "leftists" ?

Thats an awfully broad brush you are painting with there Carrie...

[Carrie]

Actually he does know and it's been the butt of many irony jokes for MONTHS now, about how he's always bashing the ACLU and here they are supporting him, and how it must be killing them to do it but his case would set a precedent on revealing private medical records.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 20 2004, 11:26 PM
Actually he does know and it's been the butt of many irony jokes for MONTHS now, about how he's always bashing the ACLU and here they are supporting him, and how it must be killing them to do it but his case would set a precedent on revealing private medical records.
The American Civil Liberties Union has backed "rightists" before now... The only reason they appear to be to the "left" is that it is usually groups that are identified with the "right" that are trying to stomp on the civil liberties that they have dedicated themselves to defend.

[sarettah]

As far as Green Peace and Sierra Club go... They are involved politically only in issues of the environment.

Protecting and preserving our environment should not be a political issue in any way. Destruction of the environment will lead to destruction of the human race.

It was not very long ago that the first earth day, etc was created. Why was it created ? It was created because back in the '60s, on the cover of Life magazine were pictures of people literally walking across the crust of Lake Erie. The great lakes were almost destroyed because of industrial, agricultural and household pollution (in particular phosphorous). A tremendous effort was undertaken throughout the '70s to toughen environmental protections and clean up the damage that had been caused by 100 years of industrial usage. At that time the river Thames in england was pronounced dead (it is now enjoying a recovery thanks to all the "leftist" laws there), Large parts of our Lakes and river systems were unusable due to high levels of toxins within them. Acid rain was proven to be destroying the watershed system of the adirondacks and the Catskills.

The "leftist" laws and controls put into place since then have seen a tremendous recovery take place. But that doesn't mean that the laws should be loosened up, it does not mean that they should be necessarily tightened up further. But we got to see firsthand how bad it can get and I personally would hate to see it get that bad again.

from: http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/pollution...ter/water1.html (http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/pollution/water/water1.html)

Water pollution in the Great Lakes

The pollution of our waterways became a national issue in June of 1969, the day that the Cuyahoga River, flowing through Cleveland, Ohio, on its way to Lake Erie, caught on fire because it was so polluted. Although this was not the first time that the Cuyahoga River had been in flames, the 1969 fire caught the attention of the nation and the fight began for increased water pollution controls, which eventually led to the Great Lakes Water Quality Act and Clean Water Act in the 1970s.

From: http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/4105420.htm?t.../printstory.jsp (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/4105420.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)

In the mid-1960s, national publications, including Life magazine, declared that Lake Erie, filled with blankets of algae, was dead. But the lake wasn't dead -- it was over-enriched with phosphorus.

In 1969, nearly 30,000 tons of phosphorus went into Lake Erie. By the mid-1990s, that amount had been cut to 11,000 tons under a U.S.-Canadian agreement.

An estimated $8 billion was spent to upgrade sewage treatment plants to reduce the amount of phosphorus going into Lake Erie.

In 1990, Ohio banned the sale of high-phosphorus laundry detergents in 32 counties that drain into the lake.



Btw... The current Clean Water act was composed firstly of amendments made to laws in 1972 during the tenure of the "leftist" administration of Richard Nixon... It was then tightened in '77.

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm#ECWA

edited to change original to current in my last paragraph. The original clean water act was 1948. It was for all intents and purposes totally rewritten with the amendments of 72 and the changes in '77. It was also tightened in '87 under the "leftist" regime of Ronald Reagan.

from: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/w...FTOKEN=59216183 (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/water/h2o-32.cfm?&CFID=12656387&CFTOKEN=59216183)

1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act P.L. 80-845
(Act of June 30, 1948)
1956 Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 P.L. 84-660
(Act of July 9, 1956)
1961 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments P.L. 87-88
1965 Water Quality Act of 1965 P.L. 89-234
1966 Clean Water Restoration Act P.L. 89-753
1970 Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 P.L. 91-224, Part I
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments P.L. 92-500
1977 Clean Water Act of 1977 P.L. 95-217
1981 Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Amendments P.L. 97-117
1987 Water Quality Act of 1987 P.L. 100-4



Last edited by sarettah at Feb 21 2004, 12:20 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, come on. Richard Nixon, like both Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, wouldn't be idealogically pure enough to be a mainstream Republican today.

The ACLU is, if nothing else, consistent in it's defense of what it perceives to be threats to freedom. This is, after all, the organization that sent a black lawyer to defend Klansmen in Cario, Illinois.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 21 2004, 12:20 AM
Oh, come on. Richard Nixon, like both Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, wouldn't be idealogically pure enough to be a mainstream Republican today.

Teddy Roosevelt ??

Isn't he the commie that basically established our National Parks system to keep all the trees from being cut down ??

Damn fucking tree hugging commie leftist he was..... :okthumb:

[PornoDoggy]

Yup. That's the one. But fuck the trees ... can you imagine his reaction to Walmart and Microsoft?

[Carrie]

Sare I agree that all of these groups have their good points, but they also tend to take things to the extreme - and for no real sensical reason.

Things like stopping the construction of a new building because a certain mosquito population lives nearby and might be affected. Who cares? Do we really give a shit if a certain *type* of mosquito is wiped out?

Things like stopping up legal drainage pipes coming from factories, blocking entry to factories, using their boats to stop passage of barges and freighters, etc... these things impact businesses, hurt jobs, endanger lives and generally aren't done for any real reason other than sensationalism and press.

While you're pointing out what Democratic presidents have done, why not point out things that Republican presidents have done as well? Noting one and not the other is the equivalent to inferring that "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water" (yes PD, that's a clear and blatant Rushism), which is simply not the case. None of us want that. But we do want common sense to take precedent over a "zero tolerance" or "black and white" stance.
Sure, we don't want to wipe out mosquitos completely - well, I wouldn't really care if we did but I understand keeping them around just for the sake of having them here - but to protect one *type* of mosquito and prevent construction that would house people, provide jobs for people, and boost the economy... that's where the grey in "black and white" comes in.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 20 2004, 11:24 PM
Sare I agree that all of these groups have their good points, but they also tend to take things to the extreme - and for no real sensical reason.

Things like stopping the construction of a new building because a certain mosquito population lives nearby and might be affected. Who cares? Do we really give a shit if a certain *type* of mosquito is wiped out?

Things like stopping up legal drainage pipes coming from factories, blocking entry to factories, using their boats to stop passage of barges and freighters, etc... these things impact businesses, hurt jobs, endanger lives and generally aren't done for any real reason other than sensationalism and press.

While you're pointing out what Democratic presidents have done, why not point out things that Republican presidents have done as well? Noting one and not the other is the equivalent to inferring that "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water" (yes PD, that's a clear and blatant Rushism), which is simply not the case. None of us want that. But we do want common sense to take precedent over a "zero tolerance" or "black and white" stance.
Sure, we don't want to wipe out mosquitos completely - well, I wouldn't really care if we did but I understand keeping them around just for the sake of having them here - but to protect one *type* of mosquito and prevent construction that would house people, provide jobs for people, and boost the economy... that's where the grey in "black and white" comes in.
What organisations do you consider "right wing"?

[Hell Puppy]

Teddy Roosevelt certainly wouldn't be a republican today. He was very much against big business. He and J.P. Morgan had brutal battles, so there's no telling what he would think of Bill Gates for real...very similar situation today with software in place of steel...

The Green Party is socialist....bordering on communist. Read their platform in detail. The Green Party is in favor of caps on salaries so there's not such a disparity between the proverbial "haves" and "have nots".

More often than not political parties use environmentalism as a smoke screen for socialist agendas. Everyone gets behind clean water and clean air, it's an easy sell. So what better way to control and restrict businesses.

If you dont think so, just analyze the logic behind some of the environmental rules that are favored by our more socialistic politicians. Under Clinton era rules, you cannot upgrade or expand major pieces of pollution impacting equipment without modernizing the entire plant to bring the whole thing up to current standards.

Bush has proposals to remove that restriction. And the environmentalists have been fiercely opposing it. But here's the detail they neglect to tell you. Bush's proposals let you upgrade anything you want so long as the cumulative amount of pollution coming out of the plant is the same or less. In most cases it will be less because the new or upgraded piece will typically be more modern.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Feb 21 2004, 12:48 AM
The Green Party is socialist....bordering on communist. Read their platform in detail. The Green Party is in favor of caps on salaries so there's not such a disparity between the proverbial "haves" and "have nots".
Can you back this up?

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Feb 21 2004, 04:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Feb 21 2004, 04:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Hell Puppy@Feb 21 2004, 12:48 AM
The Green Party is socialist....bordering on communist. Read their platform in detail. The Green Party is in favor of caps on salaries so there's not such a disparity between the proverbial "haves" and "have nots".
Can you back this up?[/b][/quote]
Although I'd rather you do your own research, I can certainly back it up.

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#7

See the section titled "Progressive and Ecological Taxes", you'll find a bulletpoint that says "Maximum Income" which calls for a 100% tax on all income over 10 times minimum wage.

Give the whole thing a read sometime, it's scary shit written by people who have no concept of how the world and business really works....

Here's another of my favorites, quoted verbatim from the URL above:

Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work.



Last edited by Hell Puppy at Feb 21 2004, 05:25 AM

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 21 2004, 02:24 AM
While you're pointing out what Democratic presidents have done, why not point out things that Republican presidents have done as well?
Um... Carrie....

The presidents I mentioned were Republicans....

And show me evidence of the Sierra Club taking extreme action...

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 21 2004, 02:24 AM
Things like stopping the construction of a new building because a certain mosquito population lives nearby and might be affected. Who cares? Do we really give a shit if a certain *type* of mosquito is wiped out?

That would be "The Endangered Species Act"....

A Federal law, again, one that was passed during a Republican Administration.....

It was passed because at a certain point we realized that we don't know how important each species is to the planet and what the cumulative effect of wiping out species will have long term...

from: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html

Findings, Purposes, and Policy

SEC. 2.
(a) FINDINGS-.The Congress finds and declares that-
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;

(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;

(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;

............................

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 21 2004, 02:24 AM
Things like stopping up legal drainage pipes coming from factories, blocking entry to factories, using their boats to stop passage of barges and freighters, etc... these things impact businesses, hurt jobs, endanger lives and generally aren't done for any real reason other than sensationalism and press.

There are groups that take things to the extreme in environmentalism and in politics...

Just because they are extreme does not make them "leftist" (although many of the environmental groups are left of center). Taking extreme action and disturbing commerce in order to make change is one of the things our country was founded on (remember the Boston Tea Party), so in a way, extreme action to make a point is an American tradition. When they advocate violent overthrow and arm themselves (insurrectionists) at that point I would label them as either "rightists" or "leftists" because you know as well as I do the connotation that those terms carry with them.

from: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect05.htm

INSURRECTIONISTS:

An insurrectionist is a person in armed opposition to the laws of the United States. There are a number of groups in the United States who regularly resort to violence in the furtherance of their political goals, or who reject with armed force the authority of the U.S. government. Such groups attack families, clinics, and offices, frequently using arson or bombing. They range in political ideology from "rightists" to "leftists" to "extremists" who are not necessarily political but extreme factions of an otherwise legitimate movement. Leftist groups tend to operate under several different names. Rightist groups tend to have the most members. Someone can belong to several different groups. Here's a list of the various groups engaged in insurrection:

American Republican Army
Animal-rights extremists
Anti-Arab extremists
Antinuclear power extremists
Antipornography extremists
Anti-Semitic extremists
Arizona Patriots
Armed Resistance Movement
Aryan Nations
Black Liberation Army
Committee of the States
Ecology/antitechnology extremists
Irish Republican Army
Islamic extremists
Japanese Red Army Faction
Jewish Defense League
KKK
Los Machateros
Puerto Rican Nationalist Group
May 19th Communist Movement
Mormon polygamist extremists
Native American extremists
Neo-Nazi organizations
Organization of Volunteers for the Puerto Rico Revolution
Posse Comitatus
Puerto Rican National Liberation Front
Red Guerrilla Resistance
Religious extremists
Revolutionary Fighting Group
Right-to-Life extremists
White Patriots Party
United Freedom Front/Sam Melville-Jonathan Jackson Unit

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Feb 21 2004, 03:48 AM
Bush has proposals to remove that restriction. And the environmentalists have been fiercely opposing it. But here's the detail they neglect to tell you. Bush's proposals let you upgrade anything you want so long as the cumulative amount of pollution coming out of the plant is the same or less. In most cases it will be less because the new or upgraded piece will typically be more modern.
Hell Puppy,

The "Clean Air Act" was passed in 1990 which if you check was George Bush senior. The changes in 1997 under Clinton do not require what you have stated.

from: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaain.html

1997 Changes to the Clean Air Act

EPA recently reviewed the current air quality standards for ground-level ozone (commonly known as smog) and particulate matter (or PM). Based on new scientific evidence, revisions have been made to both standards. At the same time, EPA is developing a new program to control regional haze, which is largely caused by particulate matter.

Offsets

What if a company wants to expand or change a production process or otherwise increase its output of a criteria air pollutant? If an owner or operator of a major source wants to release more of a criteria air pollutant, an offset (a reduction of the criteria air pollutant by an amount somewhat greater than the planned increase) must be obtained somewhere else, so that permit requirements are met and the nonattainment area keeps moving toward attainment. The company must also install tight pollution controls. An increase in a criteria air pollutant can be offset with a reduction of the pollutant from some other stack at the same plant or at another plant owned by the same or some other company in the nonattainment area. Since total pollution will continue to go down, trading offsets among companies is allowed. This is one of the market approaches to cleaning up air pollution in the Clean Air Act.

[PornoDoggy]

As far as the "lack of discussion" of what Republican presidents have accomplished - I will only state that I am not at all suprised by that remark.

According to Ohio State University (http://iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/regs/esaspp.html) there is no mosquito listed as an endangered insect. To be fair, however, there is a plant called the mosquito fern that is listed. Could be a simple mistake ... or it could be that, in the spirit of a blatant Rushism, using the insect does make it sound much more idiotic.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Feb 21 2004, 05:24 AM
Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work.
That may be the most misguided, funny and sad thing I've ever read

[Vick]

My fellow voters, it is my fondest wish that this thread and the information being exchanged here sincerely help you give thought to electing

NIXON IN 2004

He's the only man for the job
TAN, RESTED & DEAD

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Vick@Feb 21 2004, 12:56 PM
My fellow voters, it is my fondest wish that this thread and the information being exchanged here sincerely help you give thought to electing

NIXON IN 2004

He's the only man for the job
TAN, RESTED & DEAD
I'm personally backing Pat Paulson yet again this year.... :okthumb:

[PornoDoggy]

It was a used car dealers' election
And the choice was rather small
The boys agreed, "it's the war we need,
So there's no president at all."
Here's to Nixon and Agnew
They are the stars of the stage and screen
Not since Laurel and Hardy
Have I laughed so hard I screamed

I thought that Johnson was the devil
I thought we couldn't do no worse
Now the White House stands in Disneyland
This country must be under a curse
Here's to Nixon and Agnew
They are the stars of the stage and screen
Not since Laurel and Hardy
Have I laughed so hard I screamed

I dreamed that Nixon died of a suntan
There was only Spiro left
At his swearing in, he fell on his chin
He assasinated himself.
Here's to Nixon and Agnew
They are the stars of the stage and screen
Not since Laurel and Hardy
Have I laughed so hard I screamed

[JR]

vote Democrat 04'

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by JR@Feb 21 2004, 10:12 PM
vote Democrat 04'
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Bush has an attorney general who would love to burn all of us at the stake for putting nudity on the internet if the government were not distracted by terrorism.

On the other hand the democrats would trust the security of our nation to the U.N. and want to take the majority of our money and redistribute it to programs and individuals they perceive as needing it more.