Bush's 7 Deadly Sins

by Bob Schildgen

Bush's 7 Deadly Sins

1. Turning Mom Into a Superfund Site
A Bush proposal to weaken clean-air rules would put three times more mercury into our air and water than existing rules would allow. One in six women has enough mercury in her system to risk her kid having brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures, and speech impediments. Not exactly friendly to the rights of the unborn, is it, George?

2. Belly Flop in a Cesspool
Nobody much likes sewage, except maybe sewer rats or those albino mutant lizards they say inhabit the pipes. So why did Bush, on his inauguration day, rescind a rule to cut down on sewage dumping? And then he goes from belly flop to flip-flop. First, Bush whacked a new regulation to reduce the arsenic in drinking water. A few months later--after a public outcry--he agreed to cut arsenic down to the same limits they have in Old Europe.

3. Playing With Fire
Bush touted his "Healthy Forests Initiative" as a way to stop catastrophic wildfires, but it actually allows more logging on 190 million acres--which could lead to bigger fires, because it lets timber companies cut the large trees that resist burning. He also claimed this would protect family homes, even when these trees are dozens of miles away, and when fire experts say the best way to keep a building from burning is to make a clearing around it, not in the next county.

Speaking of combustion, the United States burns through 20 million barrels of oil every day. But Bush's global-warming energy plan called for opening almost 70 million more acres to oil exploration.

4. Lying, Denying, Censoring, Cheating, and Other Misundemocratic Behavior
If global warming makes you nervous, well, ignore it. That's exactly what Bush's EPA did when it sliced a whole chapter on climate change from its 2002 annual report on pollution.

There was plenty of practice for denial and deletion, the most notorious case being just after the attack on the World Trade Center. The EPA found levels of asbestos and other pollution thousands of times above normal around the disaster site. But the White House ordered the agency to announce that it was safe.

Then Dick Cheney's energy task force refused to reveal what went on in its meetings--until the courts forced the Energy Department to cough up some of the records. The department even swiped $136,000 from its solar, renewable energy, and energy conservation budgets to produce 10,000 copies of the task force's drill-America-first report.

5. Coddling Criminals
A Texas-tough law-and-order guy, Bush executed 152 people while he was governor, and the state's prison population jumped 60 percent. Yet the first year he ran America, clean-air inspections fell off 30 percent, clean-water and clean-air criminal referrals declined by 50 percent, and criminal referrals for violations of rules controlling toxic substances dropped 80 percent.

6. Putting Polluters on Welfare
At the very heart of conservatism, compassionate or otherwise, is sturdy, all-American, bootstrap-grabbing self-reliance and responsibility. Therefore, you'd expect Bush to make big-time polluters shell out to fix their messes, also known as Superfund sites. (That's how the notorious Love Canal got cleaned up.) But Bush policy exempts the polluters from paying, so taxpayers will now foot the Superfund bill by themselves.

7. Flattening Teddy's Bears and Twain's Frogs
The Bush administration has weakened environmental protection on 234 million acres--as much as Teddy Roosevelt set aside. This means more logging, roadbuilding, mining, oil drilling--and the manly art of snowmobiling. To make it easier for snowmobilers, Bush's Forest Service proposed building a bridge to roar deeper into grizzly territory in Montana's Flathead National Forest. This was after he snuffed a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

Bush even went after Mark Twain's celebrated jumping frog, yanking protection from 4 million acres of the California red-legged's habitat. He did protect 33,000 acres in Southern California for the kangaroo rat. But since these rodents are marvelously adapted to arid environments, it may be that he's just saving them for a role in desert warfare.

17,523 views 36 replies
Reply #1 Top
vERY WELL DONE.
Bush even went after Mark Twain's celebrated jumping frog, yanking protection from 4 million acres of the California red-legged's habitat. He did protect 33,000 acres in Southern California for the kangaroo rat. But since these rodents are marvelously adapted to arid environments, it may be that he's just saving them for a role in desert warfare.

There's a very good laugh.
Reply #2 Top
Rhetoric is funny in its irony. Bush, the boogey man conservative, does not want to conserve the envoirment in its pristine state in order to make room for progress- to use the resources of the land to stimulate economic growth, creating jobs, among other things. Progressives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the land. They do not want to see it used even though job creation and economic growth- progress- would result. How's that for a fip flop?


I'd like to hear how allowing dumping of sewage, and allowing fatal levels of mercury to go uncheck is allowing economic growth. You have a polluted cesspool and nothing can live or work there. Care to check land prices near love canal?
Reply #5 Top
Rhetoric is funny in its irony. Bush, the boogey man conservative, does not want to conserve the envoirment in its pristine state in order to make room for progress- to use the resources of the land to stimulate economic growth, creating jobs, among other things. Progressives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the land. They do not want to see it used even though job creation and economic growth- progress- would result. How's that for a fip flop?
Reply #6 Top
BTW, I would be interested to hear your view on the subject of over populatation and how it figures into the urgent issues that humankind faces.
Reply #7 Top
andr3ww provides 30 cases of 'Brawny' paper-towel to clean up the mess left behind by the horde of bleeding hearts
Reply #8 Top

"I'd like to hear how allowing dumping of sewage, and allowing fatal levels of mercury to go uncheck is allowing economic growth. You have a polluted cesspool and nothing can live or work there. Care to check land prices near love canal?"

Your point suggests that the rich care very little for the average Joe. While I don't think capitalists are monsters, I do suspect that at times they think of the bottom line first & foremost. Without waiting four years to vote out a republican (some would say substituting tweedle Dee for the no different twiddle dumb), what immediate act could you suggest that you & I do to stop getting shitted on? As for oil, I say we all agree to ride bicycles instead of driving in cars. A grassroots petition circulated among the Howard Dean supporters seems like a good starting point. No? I wonder how many of the affluent liberals are willing to walk?
Reply #9 Top

Reply #6 By: whoman69 - 12/27/2004 1:44:26 PM
Rhetoric is funny in its irony. Bush, the boogey man conservative, does not want to conserve the envoirment in its pristine state in order to make room for progress- to use the resources of the land to stimulate economic growth, creating jobs, among other things. Progressives, on the other hand, seek to conserve the land. They do not want to see it used even though job creation and economic growth- progress- would result. How's that for a fip flop?


I'd like to hear how allowing dumping of sewage, and allowing fatal levels of mercury to go uncheck is allowing economic growth. You have a polluted cesspool and nothing can live or work there. Care to check land prices near love canal?


And I'd like to see proof that Bush is letting this happen on his watch, not supposition. And just what does Love Canal have to do with Bush?




Timeline
Topics
Publications
Administrators
Organization
Photographs


The Love Canal Tragedy
by Eckardt C. Beck
[EPA Journal - January 1979]

If you get there before I do
Tell 'em I'm a comin' too
To see the things so wondrous true
At Love's new Model City
(From a turn-of-the-century advertising jingle promoting the development of Love Canal)



Give me Liberty. I've Already Got Death.
(From a sign displayed by a Love Canal resident, 1978)



Quite simply, Love Canal is one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history.

But that's not the most disturbing fact.

What is worse is that it cannot be regarded as an isolated event. It could happen again--anywhere in this country--unless we move expeditiously to prevent it.

It is a cruel irony that Love Canal was originally meant to be a dream community. That vision belonged to the man for whom the three-block tract of land on the eastern edge of Niagara Falls, New York, was named--William T. Love.

Love felt that by digging a short canal between the upper and lower Niagara Rivers, power could be generated cheaply to fuel the industry and homes of his would-be model city.

But despite considerable backing, Love's project was unable to endure the one-two punch of fluctuations in the economy and Louis Tesla's discovery of how to economically transmit electricity over great distances by means of an alternating current.

By 1910, the dream was shattered. All that was left to commemorate Love's hope was a partial ditch where construction of the canal had begun.

In the 1920s the seeds of a genuine nightmare were planted. The canal was turned into a municipal and industrial chemical dumpsite.

Landfills can of course be an environmentally acceptable method of hazardous waste disposal, assuming they are properly sited, managed, and regulated. Love Canal will always remain a perfect historical example of how not to run such an operation.

In 1953, the Hooker Chemical Company, then the owners and operators of the property, covered the canal with earth and sold it to the city for one dollar.

It was a bad buy.

In the late '50s, about 100 homes and a school were built at the site. Perhaps it wasn't William T. Love's model city, but it was a solid, working-class community. For a while.

On the first day of August, 1978, the lead paragraph of a front-page story in the New York Times read:

NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y.--Twenty five years after the Hooker Chemical Company stopped using the Love Canal here as an industrial dump, 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, have been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school built on the banks of the canal.
In an article prepared for the February, 1978 EPA Journal, I wrote, regarding chemical dumpsites in general, that "even though some of these landfills have been closed down, they may stand like ticking time bombs." Just months later, Love Canal exploded.

The explosion was triggered by a record amount of rainfall. Shortly thereafter, the leaching began.

I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.

And then there were the birth defects. The New York State Health Department is continuing an investigation into a disturbingly high rate of miscarriages, along with five birth-defect cases detected thus far in the area.

I recall talking with the father of one the children with birth defects. "I heard someone from the press saying that there were only five cases of birth defects here," he told me. "When you go back to your people at EPA, please don't use the phrase 'only five cases.' People must realize that this is a tiny community. Five birth defect cases here is terrifying."

A large percentage of people in Love Canal are also being closely observed because of detected high white-blood-cell counts, a possible precursor of leukemia.

When the citizens of Love Canal were finally evacuated from their homes and their neighborhood, pregnant women and infants were deliberately among the first to be taken out.

"We knew they put chemicals into the canal and filled it over," said one woman, a long-time resident of the Canal area., "but we had no idea the chemicals would invade our homes. We're worried sick about the grandchildren and their children."

Two of this woman's four grandchildren have birth defects. The children were born and raised in the Love Canal community. A granddaughter was born deaf with a cleft palate, an extra row of teeth, and slight retardation. A grandson was born with an eye defect.

Of the chemicals which comprise the brew seeping through the ground and into homes at Love Canal, one of the most prevalent is benzene -- a known human carcinogen, and one detected in high concentrations. But the residents characterize things more simply.

"I've got this slop everywhere," said another man who lives at Love Canal. His daughter also suffers from a congenital defect.

On August 7, New York Governor Hugh Carey announced to the residents of the Canal that the State Government wold purchase the homes affected by chemicals.

On that same day, President Carter approved emergency financial aid for the Love Canal area (the first emergency funds ever to be approved for something other than a "natural" disaster), and the U.S. Senate approved a "sense of Congress" amendment saying that Federal aid should be forthcoming to relieve the serious environmental disaster which had occurred.

By the month's end, 98 families had already been evacuated. Another46 had found temporary housing. Soon after, all families would be gone from the most contaminated areas -- a total of 221 families have moved or agreed to be moved.

State figures show more than 200 purchase offers for homes have been made, totaling nearly $7 million.

A plan is being set in motion now to implement technical procedures designed to meet the seemingly impossible job of detoxifying the Canal area. The plan calls for a trench system to drain chemicals from the Canal. It is a difficult procedure, and we are keeping our fingers crossed that it will yield some degree of success.

I have been very pleased with the high degree of cooperation in this case among local, State, and Federal governments, and with the swiftness by which the Congress and the President have acted to make funds available.

But this is not really where the story ends.

Quite the contrary.

We suspect that there are hundreds of such chemical dumpsites across this Nation.

Unlike Love Canal, few are situated so close to human settlements. But without a doubt, many of these old dumpsites are time bombs with burning fuses -- their contents slowly leaching out. And the next victim cold be a water supply, or a sensitive wetland.

The presence of various types of toxic substances in our environment has become increasingly widespread -- a fact that President Carter has called "one of the grimmest discoveries of the modern era."

Chemical sales in the United States now exceed a mind-boggling $112 billion per year, with as many as 70,000 chemical substances in commerce.

Love Canal can now be added to a growing list of environmental disasters involving toxics, ranging from industrial workers stricken by nervous disorders and cancers to the discovery of toxic materials in the milk of nursing mothers.

Through the national environmental program it administers, the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to draw a chain of Congressional acts around the toxics problem.

The Clean Air and Water Acts, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Pesticide Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act -- each is an essential link.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA is making grants available to States to help them establish programs to assure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. As guidance for such programs, we are working to make sure that State inventories of industrial waste disposal sites include full assessments of any potential dangers created by these sites.

Also, EPA recently proposed a system to ensure that the more than 35 million tons of hazardous wastes produced in the U.S. each year, including most chemical wastes, are disposed of safely. Hazardous wastes will be controlled from point of generation to their ultimate disposal, and dangerous pratices now resulting in serious threats to health and environment will not be allowed.

Although we are taking these aggressive strides to make sure that hazardous waste is safely managed, there remains the question of liability regarding accidents occurring from wastes disposed of previously. This is a missing link. But no doubt this question will be addressed effectively in the future.

Regarding the missing link of liability, if health-related dangers are detected, what are we as s people willing to spend to correct the situation? How much risk are we willing to accept? Who's going to pick up the tab?

One of the chief problems we are up against is that ownership of these sites frequently shifts over the years, making liability difficult to determine in cases of an accident. And no secure mechanisms are in effect for determining such liability.

It is within our power to exercise intelligent and effective controls designed to significantly cut such environmental risks. A tragedy, unfortunately, has now called upon us to decide on the overall level of commitment we desire for defusing future Love Canals. And it is not forgotten that no one has paid more dearly already than the residents of Love Canal.





Since we are talking about something that started in 1910 and ended by 1978 that is.
Link

Reply #10 Top


And I'd like to see proof that Bush is letting this happen on his watch, not supposition. And just what does Love Canal have to do with Bush?


geeee drmiler dont cha know Bush was responsible for the civil war....... the nukeing of japan., the murder of abe lincon {spelling}

He personally over saw the killing of both kennedy brothers....... Any thing bad thats happened in the last 250 years bush junior is the bad guy...... Now the good things are all done by the lunitic left..... ya know things like 2.5 million jobs since aug last year..... lowest unemployment rate forever including bill clintons heyday.... let it go dr and let the left whine and cry in peace. its what THEY do best ok??
Reply #11 Top
Yes, I know. We just love to whine about the environment. I mean, clean air to breath and clean water to drink are such silly things to worry about.

Nixon created the EPA and there have been plenty of conservative conservationists. Why are you two saying this is just a liberal issue?
Reply #12 Top
Hey "sunshinedaydream" you can go on and dream that "GOLBAL WARMING??" is accually real while the rest of us know that there have been countless scientists that have deemed it imposssible. Those Liberals who started this whole golbal warming "idea" are holding out a spoon of poison and just bitt right into it. Its amazing how gullible and quick you are to judge another human being. Your list of "Bush's seven deadly sins" is more of your own opinion that acual fact. How many deadly sins to you have" Could even count them? I doubt it.
Reply #13 Top
I wonder how much of the information sunshine believes came from the likes of the Sierra Club or Earth First - filtered through the media giants of associated press. We all know they have no agenda.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the other ice ages that have occurred prior to the dominance of the evil humans and their destructive ways. Or why there are no more dinosaurs? How can it be possible to predict climate change accurately 50 or 100 years in the future and not be able to predict with certainty what the weather will be like in 2 weeks.

I also know first hand that oil companies pay and pay and pay for cleanup of polluted sites (and rightfully so). These companies are paying for their sins from fifty years ago and the process to cleanup can take twenty years. I've seen cases where an oil company has scientific evidence to support the claim that there is no pollution level great enough to harm humans and yet a jury awards millions to the plaintiffs - this happened in Texas and Jesse Jackson got involved, need I say more.
Reply #14 Top
No serious thinkers come from the left anymore. Liberals simply bash Bush and call that policy, debate - discourse. Liberals point the finger of blame without offering ideas of their own; it is not criticism that liberals offer (certainly not constructive criticism), but rather condemnation based on a presumed moral superiority that says I’m better than someone who believes that … without offering alternatives. Of course even as a conservative I desire clean air & water. I indeed most certainly expect these things at the very least. I wonder how the Chinese will help in the pursuit of such things?
Reply #15 Top
Reply By: hitparadePosted: Monday, December 27, 2004No serious thinkers come from the left anymore. Liberals simply bash Bush and call that policy, debate - discourse. Liberals point the finger of blame without offering ideas of their own; it is not criticism that liberals offer (certainly not constructive criticism), but rather condemnation based on a presumed moral superiority that says I’m better than someone who believes that … without offering alternatives. Of course even as a conservative I desire clean air & water. I indeed most certainly expect these things at the very least. I wonder how the Chinese will help in the pursuit of such things?


ya think? lol
Reply #16 Top
Reply By: WorknmanPosted: Monday, December 27, 2004


I'm still waiting for the explanation of the other ice ages that have occurred prior to the dominance of the evil humans and their destructive ways. Or why there are no more dinosaurs? How can it be possible to predict climate change accurately 50 or 100 years in the future and not be able to predict with certainty what the weather will be like in 2 weeks.


bush did it........ all the ice ages.......... all the times the earth has heated up then radically cooled down..... bush also caused the one super continent to break apart and for all the lessor ones created after.............. then he cause all the earths people to start speaking different languages......... all this was an evil scheme to rules the world
Reply #17 Top
And I'd like to see proof that Bush is letting this happen on his watch, not supposition. And just what does Love Canal have to do with Bush?


You're not very good at putting the pieces together, are you? Love canal was used as it is the best known pollution sink hole in the country. Given the lazze faire, let industry police their own attitude that Bush has created an atmosphere that it is only a matter of time before we have a few more of these clean ups to do.

The right hear about the environment and they immediately say its bad for business. Well I'm sorry that wanting to breath is going to cost a few bucks profit.
Reply #18 Top

Reply #15 By: Moderateman - 12/27/2004 8:52:53 PM
Reply By: hitparadePosted: Monday, December 27, 2004No serious thinkers come from the left anymore. Liberals simply bash Bush and call that policy, debate - discourse. Liberals point the finger of blame without offering ideas of their own; it is not criticism that liberals offer (certainly not constructive criticism), but rather condemnation based on a presumed moral superiority that says I’m better than someone who believes that … without offering alternatives. Of course even as a conservative I desire clean air & water. I indeed most certainly expect these things at the very least. I wonder how the Chinese will help in the pursuit of such things?


ya think? lol


ROFL
Reply #19 Top
You'd better hope draginol doesn't decided to vent on this article... I read it and expected him to have torn it to shreds already. But I figure I may as well throw in a refutation if I'm going to make that irritating of a comment... so I'll pick an easy one.

I encourage everybody to check out what scientists predicted global warming would change the earth into by 2004 back in 1990. Then, I encourage you to see how much of our coastlines have actually disappeared. Global warming in the least of our problems, sunshine.

But a good article, in any case, and well researched.

I know I'm not signed in, but I don't want people to think I'm evading responsibility, so if anybody wants to tell me how terribly, inexcusably wrong I am, feel free to e-mail me @ [email protected].

El Corozon del Noche
Reply #20 Top
Two issues were foremost on the minds of the framers of our Federal Constitution. First was that King George’s army was going to return as soon as he dealt with the King of France’s intent to invade England. The second issue was the right to own slaves.

Needless to say the framers wrote a constitution with a central government lead by a president empowered to assemble and command a powerful army. And to no surprise, they then chose General Washington to be their President.

The King of England did return his Army in the War of 1812 and discovered a powerful American army. Today our national government spends more than the next 20 nations on national defense and commands the most powerful military force in the world.

The second issue influencing the writing of our Constitution is the issue of human rights. The framers were very careful to balance property rights with human rights in such a way that property rights would be protected.

They arranged for a Senate apportioned by area with the power to veto court appointments. They felt this would insure the protection of property rights for the minority over the human rights of the majority.

The slave owning areas agreed to allow Congress to stop the importation of slaves in 20 years, but required runaway slaves to be returned. Slavery was considered an abomination by most people. England abolished slave trade in 1809 and slavery in 1833.

The die was cast. The contest began in the halls of the new American government. Would the issue of property rights over human rights be resolved with ballots or bullets? Much posturing occurred, but in the end it was bullets that settled the issue in the Great Civil War. Human rights won, but the battle for racial integration continues to rage on in the halls of our present government.

Today the great issue surrounds when life begins. The question is: Does a woman’s property rights to her body trump the human rights of the newly created life in her body? This is again a moral issue that deeply divides our nation and it subtly invades all our political actions. Will this issue of property rights over human rights be resolved with ballots or bullets?

Is a fetus property? Certainly animals are considered property. People in servitude were considered property. Many were happy serving their master. However, some were mistreated and sought freedom. Many people felt that those servants should be allowed to escape, but others feared that any restriction on slave owning would result in an abolishment of slavery. Like today’s choice advocates they refused to compromise.

Today we see black people as humans and not property. Perhaps tomorrow we will treat a viable fetus (One that can survive outside its mother)as a human rather than property. Like the early slave owners, the property rights advocates are posturing their battle in the Senate and the Supreme Court to protect their rights, but the human rights advocates are waging their fight in the voting booths.

Contrary to popular political propaganda, historically the Democrat Party has usually favored property rights, i.e. slaves and women are property and therefore un-entitled to vote; Weapons, Advertising and religion are property to be restricted. The Republican Party generally favors human rights, i.e. free expression in unrestricted speech and religious symbols; wars to liberate oppressed people; graduated taxation to share the burden of government fairly.

In retrospect the abolition of slavery seems obvious. Will the issue of abortion be the same? Certainly it will be a long and continuous struggle. Perhaps with improved modern contraception the need for abortion will be greatly reduced and restricted.

Perhaps strong and wise leaders will solicit the scientific community to develop better means to reduce unwanted pregnancies, develop better adoption methods and compromise on a method to determine the viability of life.

The Democrats take the side of property rights in the issue of gay marriage. They hold that gay couples are entitled to the equal property rights as married couples and therefore are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Republicans take the side of human rights. They hold that marriage is a sexual behavior issue that defines a wholesome human procreation order. It is a human behavior issue and not a property rights issue.

Justice Breyer has it dead wrong. He is on the property rights side and clearly legislates in favor of property rights. The only time he has a problem is when the issue is between property rights and then he favors the majority property owners.

Republicans generally favor private property rights over public rights. This again is an issue of the human right to freely use and protect a person’s home and private property. The Democrats generally favor the government’s right to appropriate private property through regulations and restrictions.

Generally speaking Republicans favor human rights over property rights and private property rights over government rights. They seek less government. Democrats favor property rights over human rights and government rights over private property rights. They seek big government.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see the big urban centers voting Democrat and the small urban areas and rural communities voting Republican. We continue to be a Nation divided over the issue of property rights vs human rights. Hopefully, we will resolve our differences over time. We can now see some evidences of the shift in favor of human rights with the growing strength of the Republican Party as occurred preceeding the Civil War. It continued for 70 years until the economic destruction brought on by unrestricted private property rights demanded greater government rights over priate property and resulted in the New Deal.
Reply #21 Top
Would you happen to have the cliff notes version of that post.....?

.....
..

....Man I have a headache now......
Reply #22 Top
The King of England did return his Army in the War of 1812 and discovered a powerful American army.


Hate to burst your bubble, but the American army was non-existent at the time. There was a planned invasion of Canada which was easily repulsed and the British marched the invaders nearly to Illinois before they were stopped. They marched nearly unapposed into our nation's capital and burned most of it to the ground, only stopped by a sudden hurricane. The uproar over the capital and the fact that they knew Baltimore was next allowed the Americans to form a credible defense. This might not be enough had a sniper's bullet not cut down the English commanding general near the start of the battle. Even then, the outcome was greatly in doubt..

Is a fetus property?


That is not the question that guides us. The question is not whether they are property, but whether they are yet a human being.

Perhaps strong and wise leaders will solicit the scientific community to develop better means to reduce unwanted pregnancies, develop better adoption methods and compromise on a method to determine the viability of life.


Unfortunately the right is against birth control, its existence, its implementation and even in teaching how to use it properly. So even if new methods were introduced, they would be combatted.

Generally speaking Republicans favor human rights over property rights and private property rights over government rights. They seek less government.


This was certainly not the case during the civil rights era. Its not the case now with the Patriot Act, and was never the case with respect to freedom of speech and also in pornography. There is more government now than there ever was.

The Democrats take the side of property rights in the issue of gay marriage. They hold that gay couples are entitled to the equal property rights as married couples and therefore are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Republicans take the side of human rights. They hold that marriage is a sexual behavior issue that defines a wholesome human procreation order. It is a human behavior issue and not a property rights issue.


That's an interesting take, but one could equally argue that its a human issue that gay want to affirm their relationship, a quite human issue. If they see it as a property issue, then why don't Republicans come down on the side of civil unions as Democrats have. Both Kerry and Edwards stated they were against gay marriage but for civil unions. I haven't heard Bush come out in favor of civil unions, the property issue.

Reply #23 Top
Sorry, but "Love Canal" is waaaaay old hat. You cannot use something that happened in 1910 to describe what you say is a Bush screw up.
Reply #24 Top
Both Kerry and Edwards stated they were against gay marriage but for civil unions.


of course they did they would say anything to please any group....... and they still lost.
Reply #25 Top
of course they did they would say anything to please any group....... and they still lost.


If that were the case they would have stated they were in favor of gay marriage. You are also functioning by what Karl Rove and the republican smear machine has told you. by your standards, it doesn't matter what they would say, its automatically a lie. do you have any proof that either of them at any time have said or done anything to state they were for gay marriage or against civil unions. until then, its so much propoganda on your part.