Who wins the majority vote doesn't matter.
Bush won the electoral college and Kerry conceded. So whether we like it or not, Bush won the election.
Printable View
Who wins the majority vote doesn't matter.
Bush won the electoral college and Kerry conceded. So whether we like it or not, Bush won the election.
Am I wrong? Did he not win the popular vote by 3.5 Million votes in addition to the Electoral College?????
Yes, Bush did. I'm just saying in regards to who wins a presidential election, winning the majority vote doesn't matter.
I loathe to bring it up for fear of being accused of "not letting go" but Gore won the majority vote in 2000, but he did not win the electoral college so he did not win the election.
It is difficult to do one without the other but it is possible.
There are plenty of Internet rumors flying about who won the election. The main source is Greg Palast, who of course did the documentary "Bush Family Fortunes," and is a liberal. So, his opinions may not be considered anything more than opinions by most. All that matters in reality is that Kerry conceded, and Bush has won. Now we just have to move forward.
Anyway here is a link so you all can see what I am referring to.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php
is anyone at all concerned about the environment? Bush wants to drill Alaska even though he's been told the amount of oil there is miniscuele (sp) and not worthy of drilling. And it disrupts the natural flights and landings of flocks of geese that have been using a particular part of the land (that he wants to tear down) for god knows how many hundreds of years...
He has undone many if not all of the bills that Clinton put into place for a better environment. Houston now has worse pollution than Los Angeles. (from lifting regulations- NICE move)
The amount of oil in ANWAR is far from miniscule, and with modern drilling techniques drilling can be done with minimum environmental inpact.
As far as the air in houston goes, anyone who's ever been there can vouch for the fact that it has never been a garden spot, and then governor bush was extremely limited in how he could impact it. A Governor CANNOT ignore federal law.
As for ANWAR their are two arguments pro and con,
just depends on which side you want to believe or
are their alternatives.
UCdavis. articles:
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL1...iscussion.html
Of course there are alternatives to increased drilling, especially considering that developing ANWR would be about a 10 year project. One major problem with alternative energy sources, however, is that the same environmental groups that are screaming about drilling in ANWR are at the same time suing to stop the CA wind farms, trying to stop a wind farm in Nantucket sound, stopping development on safer nuclear plants, etc.
There are alternatives, however we aren't being allowed to explore those either.
I am willing to help for an alternative.
Even though it's only a dent..
(no more gas gozzlers for me)
Even if it cost a little more my next car will be a hybrid. :)
P.S. I realize this is a change of subject, but that is
one thing that makes me :mad:
Their are alternatives to many of our problems.
(such as alternatives to the energy and drought
problems in CA.)
But powerful lobbyists get in the way when it comes
to the almighty $$$ and we the the people want
our comforts even though it might not be the best
for the enviroment.
JMHO
In realtive terms, yes Anwar's oil reserve is miniscule. The US contains less than 3% of the world's total oil reserve, while at the same time being the world's greatest consumer. As long as we are dependent on oil, we will continue be held hostage by OPEC and the middle east oil producing nations. The most optimistic estimates target Anwar's total reserve at providing perhaps, 6 months to 1 year's worth of energy with the country running at full capacity. Most of Alaska's north slope has already been set aside for oil development as it is and oil from ANWAR's coastal plain will do little to reduce the U.S. need for oil from other countries. We cannot drill our way out of the energy canundrum.
It's sad to see how the "environmental movement" has become foder for jokes by such notable, enlightened conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who is quick to label us as "environmental whackos." (Apparently the earth is totally self sustaining, according to Mr. Limbaugh, no matter how great our pillaging, plundering and polluting.) No Mr. Limbaugh, I am not a tree hugging, granola eating, sandal wearing nut. I care about the air that I breathe, the water that I drink and the land I love.
In fact, the father of the environmental movement, the nation's first notable conservationist, was also one of our greatest presidents, the progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
In his seven years as President, Teddy Roosevelt increased the national forests by 148 million acres, added five national parks, 1.4 million acres of national monuments, 400,000 acres of wildlife refuges, and 1.5 million acres of land reclaimed by irrigation. The amount of land protected by Roosevelt's conservationist work is close to the size of Texas--more than 151 million acres.
Even before becoming President, as Gov. of NY, his efforts at protecting and conserving our wildlife and undeveloped land, was without precedence.
"In the 1890s, public confidence in the state’s forest commission and its attitude toward conservation was particularly low. Laws were circumvented and land set aside in the Catskills and Adirondacks as forest preserve was being sold to private developers. In 1894, the Legislature enacted the "forever wild" clause in the state constitution and the efforts of Governor Roosevelt, including his reform of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission, began meaningful change.
In addition to strengthening the forest commission, Governor Roosevelt won approval of environmental reforms including preserving the Palisades against development, preventing the dumping of sawmill waste into streams of the Adirondacks and Catskills. He was vehement about concerns for pollution of the state’s waterways, many of which had become, in his words, "little more than open sewers." In this regard, he issued an order prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage, domestic waste or manufacturing refuse into Saratoga Lake or its tributaries which flowed into the Hudson River because of potential affect on drinking water. He also ordered the Saratoga Springs and Ballston Spa to install sewage treatment facilities and forced tanneries and pulp mills in the area to treat their waste before discharging them into the waters."
The environmental movement was apparently, spearheaded by a REPULICAN! Having lived on the banks of the Hudson Riverm ost of my life, I was one of those who directly benefited from his efforts to preserve and protect the magnifcent Palisade Cliffs. If you've ever had the pleasure and privilege of visiting any of a number of our magnificent Natl. Parks, thank Teddy Roosevelt!
And thanks to a Democratic President, Pres. John Kennedy, 43,500 acres of seashore, dunes, marsh have been preserved and protected for all time. Now I too, am assured that this magnicent land, the Cape Cod National Seashore, will forever be free from the pollution and exclusionary ramifications of multi million dollar "trophy homes." I may walk and comb the same beaches and shoreline as Thoreau, who was inspired to write some of his most inspirational works, here on Cape Cod.
So it seems that environmentalism cannot be dissmissively labeled a liberal, left wing issue. Men and women of both political persuasions have historically put the health of the earth at the forefront. It is an issue held dear by all who wish to respect and protect one of God's greatest gifts to us all, this magnificent earth.
Yes Leslie, the environment is right there near the top of MY list of "moral values issues," a topic that sadly, garned little if any attention during the campaign. Much to his credit, it was a Republican Pres., Pres. Nixon, who set into the motion and made law, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act whose regulations, strict guidelines and standards are now, after 30 years of progress, in peril of being rolled back by the Bush administration. In fact it was the Nixon administration which created the Environmental Protection Agency. on 1970 by Exectutive Order.
From the EPA's website...
"In 1970 President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Executive Order. An executive order is an order issued by a government's chief executive, intended to give attention to a certain law or body of laws and directs federal agencies how to implement them. The formation of EPA marked a dramatic change in national policy regarding the control of air pollution. Whereas previous federal involvement had been mostly in advisory and educational roles, the new EPA emphasized stringent enforcement of air pollution laws. The EPA was assigned the daunting task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and establishing new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner environment a reality. A few weeks later the United States Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1970. The passage of the CAAA of 1970 marked the beginning of modern efforts to control air pollution".
We wring our hands and pull out our hair, worrying about the harazdous affects of "second hand smoke" upon our health while we seem far less than concerned about the toxins being dumped into our waterways, released into our atmoshphere by industy!!!
If you'd liketo learn more about the Clean Air Act, the Bush administration's efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act and what you can do to about it, click here...Save the Clean Air Act
I had the pleasure of serving for three years aboard his namesake, the USS Theodore Roosevelt during which time I gained great respect for him as a statesman, writer, historian, naturalist and environmentalist. He is also the architect of the modern U.S. Navy, won the Nobel Peace Prize and busted the trusts. He is one of our most overlooked presidents when the "great" ones are discussed.Quote:
Originally posted by tatsxxx11
In fact, the father of the environmental movement, the nation's first notable conservationist, was also one of our greatest presidents, the progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
There are many who mistakenly refer to him as "Teddy" Roosevelt. He was called "Teddy" by his first wife Alice. When she died he forbade anyone from using it in his presence.
One of the first things we were taught upon arriving at the ship was that it was to be referred to as the "USS Theodore Roosevelt" or the "TR," but never the "Teddy" Roosevelt out of respect for his wishes. To this day I still use Theodore or TR.
Thank you so much for that clarification, jscperson! I certianly meant no disrespect; to the contrary, I admire him greatly! Interesting that so many websites and the "vernacular," continue to refer to him as Teddy! My apologies to Alice and to the President!
What a great experience and honor that must have been for you, serving on the USS Theordore Roosevelt!:)
I have no problem with a feasible environmental strategy, however the extremists have taken over the debate. Wind farms were a golden solution 15 years ago, however now the same environmental groups that were pushing their development are trying to defeat new developments (Nantucket sound and CA) and trying to shut down existing wind farms (CA). Nuclear power was very effectively shut down in the US (No new plants since Seabrook), and Hydro power is anathema to the environmental extremists. If we go to some form of electric vehicle for transportation, where is the electricity going to come from?
There needs to be a bridge from point a (oil dependency) to point b (alternative solutions), but the extremists on both sides won't allow it. Nuclear power is quite safe (Chernobyl could never happen in the US, for one we don't use that reator type, and our safety controls are much more effective), but instead of building plants in the US, GE is shipping plants overseas. Wind and Solar can only at present make up for a small proportion of the power required by the US. Any alternatives, anyone?
Points well taken, LH. I live on Nantucket Sound and so am quite familiar with the controversy currently raging regarding the proposed wind farm to be constructed on Horseshoe Shoals. Environmental impact not withstanding, the case has been taken to federal court, disputing the right of a private, commercial enterprise, namely Cape Wind Farm, to construct these turbines in fedral waters. Certainly no one is naive enough to believe that Cape Wind Farm is acting in the pubic interest, for altruistic reasons. They are out to make a buck and to set such a precedent, to allow similiar private enterprises to construct these tubines in federal water without oversee, is I believe, something we do at our peril.
Opponents and state officials argue that there is no firm regulatory structure to determine how and where offshore wind farms can be built in federal waters, and that the plan should be halted until a clear approval process is established. A powerful anti-wind farm group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, also filed suit in federal court saying that the Army Corps of Engineers, which licensed the construction of the data tower, had no authority to permit the use of "public waters" to a private developer without clear guidelines in place. That case is pending in federal court.
Yes, in theory, one may argue that this should indeed be a project hearlded by environmentalists. But the postive aspects of the farm may in fact be out weighed by a myriad of negative impacts, including effects upon some of the most fertile fisheries in the country and possbile impact upon weather patterns amd interference with shipping lanes. Here it is not the construction of such a project that is at issue so much as the location.
Being the eternal optimist that I am, and having great faith in American ingenuity and know how, I have to be believe that somewhere out there, there's got to be some emerging Einstien who will come up with the ultimate solution to our energy crissi;)
I'm sorry, I did not mean it to be taken as a correction of what you wrote.Quote:
Originally posted by tatsxxx11
Thank you so much for that clarification, jscperson! I certianly meant no disrespect; to the contrary, I admire him greatly! Interesting that so many websites and the "vernacular," continue to refer to him as Teddy! My apologies to Alice and to the President!
What a great experience and honor that must have been for you, serving on the USS Theordore Roosevelt!:)
That is a personal choice I still make. Walking the passageways of that great ship and realizing what it represents was a tremendous honor. Hardly a day goes by when I don't think about some aspect of my career in the Navy, including Desert Storm. My office on the TR had a poster with the words of John F. Kennedy:
Quote:
Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile -- can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction. "I served in the United States Navy"
You've given me goosebumps, jcperson! Among my most beloved American heroes are President Roosevelt and President Kennedy, both "Navy men." Their deeds, their words, hold such hope, optimism and inspiration. Thank you for your service to our country!:) And I took NO offense at all at being "corrected!":)
JFK is the first president I can remember. I was 8 when he was assassinated. I remember that as a time when people rarely spoke ill of the president and even the most vociferous political arguments were on issues rather than personalities.Quote:
Originally posted by tatsxxx11
You've given me goosebumps, jcperson! Among my most beloved American heroes are President Roosevelt and President Kennedy, both "Navy men." Their deeds, their words, hold such hope, optimism and inspiration. Thank you for your service to our country!:) And I took NO offense at all at being "corrected!":)
From everything I've read, TR was most likely our most revered president while in office. When he uttered his famous, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" line, the White House mail room was deluged with all manner of sticks, clubs and cudgels, many elaborately carved, for him to brandish at speeches. On the USS Theodore Roosevelt we had a tiny TR museum with one of those cudgels on display. It also had a set of his pearl-handled revolvers, stuffed birds he had collected, campaign badges, photos, and other mementos.
I don't have anything to contribute to the conversation right now but I wanted to say I am really enjoying the posts and am learning a lot too! Thank you!
Woe for the day that our Presidents and leaders were held in reverence during their lifetimes. They say the nation lost it's innocence the day that JFK was shot and I do believe that to be true, that innocence replaced by a cynacism and skeptism that is bound to cloud the true merit of the man...or woman.
I was reading an Audobon article recently which noted TR's great love for birds. It may be myth but has been said, that on his death bed, he mentioned among his greatest regrets in passing, was to never again hear the sweet, sad music of the thrush.
For example, TR’s journal sensually describes the sounds of the wilderness birds in this passage, referred to as "Keatsian" by biographers:
"Perhaps the sweetest bird music I have ever listened to was uttered by a hermit thrush....We had been out for two or three hours but had seen nothing; once we heard a tree fall with a dull, heavy crash; and two or three times the harsh hooting of an owl had been answered by the unholy laughter of a loon from the bosom of the lake, but otherwise nothing had occurred to break the death-like stillness of the night....Suddenly the quiet was broken by the song of a hermit thrush; louder and clearer it sang from the depths of the grim and rugged woods, until the sweet, sad music seemed to fill the very air and to conquer for the moment the gloom of the night. I shall never forget it."
"Keatsian" is appropriate. Not too many people can write like that anymore.Quote:
Originally posted by tatsxxx11
I was reading an Audobon article recently which noted TR's great love for birds. It may be myth but has been said, that on his death bed, he mentioned among his greatest regrets in passing, was to never again hear the sweet, sad music of the thrush.
For example, TR’s journal sensually describes the sounds of the wilderness birds in this passage, referred to as "Keatsian" by biographers:
"Perhaps the sweetest bird music I have ever listened to was uttered by a hermit thrush....We had been out for two or three hours but had seen nothing; once we heard a tree fall with a dull, heavy crash; and two or three times the harsh hooting of an owl had been answered by the unholy laughter of a loon from the bosom of the lake, but otherwise nothing had occurred to break the death-like stillness of the night....Suddenly the quiet was broken by the song of a hermit thrush; louder and clearer it sang from the depths of the grim and rugged woods, until the sweet, sad music seemed to fill the very air and to conquer for the moment the gloom of the night. I shall never forget it."