First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I cannot for the life of me ever figure out why so
many folks who claim to be concerned with protecting
our outdoor heritage can vote Republican.

snip
I truly believe that most people, regardless of voting history, are
dissatisfied with the idiot we have and his thug buddies. But that
dissatisfaction is proven to not be enough to lead to change. We
need leaders we can actively support, not just ones that 'aren't as
bad as the other guy.'

Dream on. The American electorate, like any other, gets the
leaders it deserves. The average American voter is dumber than
a box of rocks and wouldn't know a good leader if one bit him
on the tit. Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils is still
voting for evil but for the sake of your great-grandchildren
and theirs, you'd better hold your nose and vote these thugs
out before it's too late.

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote these
thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote IN". The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

http://css.sbcma.com/timj/pics/kerry_notbush.jpg ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I cannot for the life of me ever figure out why so
many folks who claim to be concerned with protecting
our outdoor heritage can vote Republican.

snip
I truly believe that most people, regardless of voting history, are
dissatisfied with the idiot we have and his thug buddies. But that
dissatisfaction is proven to not be enough to lead to change. We
need leaders we can actively support, not just ones that 'aren't as
bad as the other guy.'

Dream on. The American electorate, like any other, gets the
leaders it deserves. The average American voter is dumber than
a box of rocks and wouldn't know a good leader if one bit him
on the tit. Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils is still
voting for evil but for the sake of your great-grandchildren
and theirs, you'd better hold your nose and vote these thugs
out before it's too late.

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote these
thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote IN".

If protecting the environment isn't a good enough reason for
an outdoorsman to "vote IN" then I am puzzled.

The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

The last election proved my assertion that the average American
voter is dumber than a box of rocks. I don't know how to convince
the "dumber than a box of rocks" portion of the American electorate
to vote for their own self-interest, maybe you can shed some light
on that. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I cannot for the life of me ever figure out why so
many folks who claim to be concerned with protecting
our outdoor heritage can vote Republican.

snip
I truly believe that most people, regardless of voting history, are
dissatisfied with the idiot we have and his thug buddies. But
that dissatisfaction is proven to not be enough to lead to change.
We need leaders we can actively support, not just ones that
'aren't as bad as the other guy.'

Dream on. The American electorate, like any other, gets the
leaders it deserves. The average American voter is dumber than
a box of rocks and wouldn't know a good leader if one bit him
on the tit. Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils is still
voting for evil but for the sake of your great-grandchildren
and theirs, you'd better hold your nose and vote these thugs
out before it's too late.

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote
these thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote
IN".

If protecting the environment isn't a good enough reason for
an outdoorsman to "vote IN" then I am puzzled.

The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

The last election proved my assertion that the average American
voter is dumber than a box of rocks. I don't know how to convince
the "dumber than a box of rocks" portion of the American electorate
to vote for their own self-interest, maybe you can shed some light
on that. ;-)

I don't understand. G
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:06:37 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

(snipped)

If protecting the environment isn't a good enough reason for
an outdoorsman to "vote IN" then I am puzzled.

I might have voted for Kerry. If I'd thought he meant anything he
said about the environment. It was close. I didn't think he was as
dumb as Bush (the trees are stealing our water) about it, but neither
did I have any reason to believe he had a clue or an urge about
protecting natural resources. And the one statement of his that I saw
/ heard on TV about the gun issue convinced me that he was pretty
clueless in general.

He just wasn't good enough to vote for. Had he won, I'd not have
wanted to be any part of the responsibility for his being president.
Despising Bush and the neo-cons just wasn't quite enough of a kicker.

I voted Libertarian. Or Grassroots. I've forgotten which (not due to
smoking anything interesting, either). They're my usual choices when
the major parties don't make me tingle. At least they come somewhat
close to showing my feelings about political platforms.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Cyli wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:06:37 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

(snipped)

If protecting the environment isn't a good enough reason for
an outdoorsman to "vote IN" then I am puzzled.


I might have voted for Kerry. If I'd thought he meant anything he
said about the environment.

I guess sponsoring the Sustained Fisheries Act doesn't cut much ice with
you.

There's saying and then there's doing.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tim J. wrote:

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote these
thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote IN". The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

If you get all your information from right-wing talk radio and Fox News,
it's understandable that you think Democrats have no position except ABB.

Here are a few of John Kerry's environmental policy positions, taken
from http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm#Environment

The Clear Skies bill is Orwellian and makes things worse. (Oct 2004)
Make environmental justice an EPA priority. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep
1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Fund studies of sustainable fisheries. (Oct 1996)
Fund studies of invasive species and algal blooms. (Mar 1998)

Kerry sponsored the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1995, which:

* Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
to:Prohibit individual fishing quota programs unless approved before
January 4,
* Mandates guidelines regarding fish habitat conservation and enhancement.
* Modifies requirements regarding emergency actions (including
concerning oil spills) and adds to the emergency action provisions
references to interim measures needed to reduce overfishing.
* Provides for an information collection program specific to the needs
of a fishery.
* Requires a comprehensive program of fishery research to carry out this
Act;
* Requires developing technological changes to minimize bycatch and
evaluate related ecological impacts, benefits, and costs, and assess the
use of unavoidable bycatch; and
* Establishes of a fishery conservation and management ecosystem
advisory panel.








--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote
these thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote
IN". The last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning
elections.

If you get all your information from right-wing talk radio and Fox
News, it's understandable that you think Democrats have no position
except ABB.

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and BIOYA,
you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Tim J. wrote:

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and BIOYA,
you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)

When the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by the opposing
party, and when their record is deplorably pathetic and even criminal,
you run your campaign against that record. That's the way it is, the way
it's always been, and the way it always will be. Have you been hiding
under a rock, or what?

BTW, would you describe those lying "Swift Boat Veterans" ads as anti-Kerry?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and
BIOYA, you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)

When the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by the opposing
party, and when their record is deplorably pathetic and even criminal,
you run your campaign against that record. That's the way it is, the
way it's always been, and the way it always will be.

.. . . so you're saying my statement is true. I'm glad we agree.

Have you been hiding under a rock, or what?

Hmmmm. . . if it's warm and dry, I might give it a go. It couldn't be
worse than the crappy weather we've been having here in New England.

BTW, would you describe those lying "Swift Boat Veterans" ads as
anti-Kerry?

Absolutely. For the record, and I've said this before, both side's
campaigns were pitifully negative and sucked big time. Which brings me
back to my first point: if the Dems had placed someone who could
convince voters he/she "could feel their pain", they would have had a
victory. Instead they placed a holier-than-thou, nose-in-the-air snob in
the arena who didn't connect with the voters.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Tim J. wrote:

Absolutely. For the record, and I've said this before, both side's
campaigns were pitifully negative and sucked big time. Which brings me
back to my first point: if the Dems had placed someone who could
convince voters he/she "could feel their pain", they would have had a
victory. Instead they placed a holier-than-thou, nose-in-the-air snob in
the arena who didn't connect with the voters.

From things you've written here, I understand that you're a working
man, that you've seen hard times, and maybe you're still seeing them. I
also know that you're an outdoor sportsman. A vote for the GOP, and for
Bush in particular, is a vote for crony capitalism, for gargantuan CEO
salaries, for tax cuts for the very rich, for record deficits, for
outsourcing of American jobs, for hypocritical "values" that these
clowns violate at every opportunity, for war profiteering, for the rape
of the environment, and for lying us into a costly and interminable and
unnecessary war, among other things.

I have to conclude that you're a fool.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.