And the reason for that are the regulations that are shielding the corporations from the court actions.

There is no reason to regulate ANY corporate activity per se, that is my point. Whether you perceive EPA regulations as good or bad is not the point; they're still regulations, that are designed to benefit some interest group, but very rarely the people.

But frankly, your continuing baseless attacks on the current administration are rather tiring. You're throwing out claims without any support, save alternet.org, as if they're undeniable truth. I wonder if this is all part of the "wertham League conspiracy".

Krem, its not about me or the money. Its about the future. Yeah, there's a hole in the ozone. So, if I can prove which company gave it to me (impossible, its a cumulative mess) than I guess I could sue them. But, 1)big f*****' deal if I've got alot of cash and am on my death bed, and 2) The hole is still there for everyone else to get breast and skin cancer from.

Environment has to be anticipatory, because if some company goes bankrupt from trials (I doubt it, no way of proving which did it to you) than even if they go under, the damage has already been done. I can't believe you support pre-empt strikes against other countries as a form of self-defense but don't believe in pre-empt policy to protect the environment as, well, a form of self-defense?

edit* Damnit I spell like an idiot. Negates all my points when the words look like this: sdkljfhsi

You've already seen it in Afghanistan with the installation of the puppet Karzai And you won't have to wait long to see more proof. Watch the elections in Iraq next month.

It might not be about the money to YOU, but it IS about the money to the companies. That's all they do: try and make profit. So if they realize their profit might be in danger, they WILL take precautinory measures to make sure they don't get sued (especially under class action). Government regulations remove the incentive from the companies to try and pre-empt such lawsuits; the only incentive they then have is to comply with just enough government regulation, and then they're off the hook.

As far as something like the hole in the ozone layer goes, that CAN be solved, by simply outlawing the use of the CFCs where it can be emitted in the atmosphere. However, it has to be done with solid scientific evidence, not the flimsy stuff that the so-called environmentalists use to justify Kyoto.

Who is going to be our "puppet" in Iraq then?

Thats not necessarily true. The companies will inevitably do what makes them the greatest profit. If the cost of the lawsuits is less than making drastic overhaul and changes, then they'll deal with the lawsuits. I hate to suggest a movie, because it was pretty damn bad, and most of it was garbage and usually bit itself in the but, but the one okay section of The Corporation actually dealt with the history of companies in court, and in fact, there is a precedence for companies opting not to make the changes for the very fact that the lawsuites do cost them less. They full well know after 50 people sue them and lose, people will probably stop suing them anyways, and will just deal with caughing up blood. Life expectancy is getting too long anyways I guess.

Well to that I say: if the court costs are less than preventing the court cost in the future, then the damages must not be that great in the first place. However, if it's lung cancer, and enough people get that lung cancer, then I'm confident that the damages will far exceed whatever the court costs and the cost to overhaul are.

While the Bush League is all about destroying forests, Wangari Maathai is all about planting them. Only time will tell who will win in the end... but I'll put my money on Mother Nature any day.

Oh, and BTW: Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. It seeks to deprive the common man of political representation. It creates and sustains the Power Elite by creating an insurmountable gap between the rich and the poor. Capitalists actually HATE democracy, because it often imposes expensive regulations on them. Also, the 20th century has proven that Capitalism promotes the profligate consumption of natural resources.

Karl Rove admitted that the Bush League KNEW Kerry was toast as early as May-June. At that time, they realized he had NO CHANCE of being elected. The outcome was never in doubt, because they had a virtually limitless supply of cash to use against Kerry... or any other Dem who might be stupid enough to run. ALL of the 2004 presidential candidates were vulnerable to attack ads... but what bewildered the Dems more than the inevitable smear tactics was the loss of Senate seats. There's no logic in those races at all, when you look at the questionable character of the GOPs who won those races.

BTW: We have yet to see a TRUE communist government in any country, but we WILL... within the next 50 years. Then maybe we'll begin to see some justice in this world.




Other awards have included

The Sophie Prize (2004),
The Petra Kelly Prize for Environment (2004),
Arbor Day Foundation's J. Sterling Morton Award (2004),
Conservation Scientist Award (2004),
the WANGO Environment Award (2003),
Outstanding Vision and Commitment Award (2002),
Excellence Award from the Kenyan Community Abroad (2001),
The Juliet Hollister Award (2001),
the Golden Ark Award (1994),
the Jane Adams Leadership Award (1993),
the Edinburgh Medal (1993),
UN's Africa Prize for Leadership (1991),
the Goldman Environmental prize (1991),
the Woman of the World (1989),
the Windstar Award for the Environment (1988),
the Better World Society Award (1986),
the right livelihood award (1984)
and the Woman of the Year Award (1983).

You're completely oblivious to the fact that U.S. forests are increasing in size by the year.

SOme environmentalist you are


Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the political system. All it requires is for the government not to intrude on private transactions. Everything else you said is simply moronic, considering that majority of democracies in the world also feature some form of capitalistic economy.

That's weird, considering the Democrats spent considerably more money on the presidential race. But those are facts, and facts have no place in your posts.

Once again, the Dems spent more money on the Senate races. So, what gives?

Many have tried, and none have succeeded. It's not because of implementation; it is because communism has inherent problems, namely, people like you, who think they know better than anybody else what to do.

Man! Are you ever misinformed. Or do you merely seek to misinform others?

2004 Presidential Election

Anyone running for president has to raise a lot of money. But candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election must collect enormous sums for their campaigns. President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, for example, raised a total of nearly half a billion dollars in private contributions during the presidential primary season. They did so under increased contribution limits mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

As the Republican and Democratic nominees, Bush and Kerry each received $74.6 million in government funding for the general election. In return, they cannot raise or spend private funds after accepting their party's nomination. They were entitled to government matching funds during the primaries, but turned them down to free themselves of federally mandated spending limits. Their decision (and that of Howard Dean, who also rejected matching funds) helped to make this presidential election the most expensive in history.

Presidential candidates:

George W. Bush (R)

$291.9 (in millions)$74.6 (in millions) $366,554,535

John Kerry (D)

$248 (in millions)$74.6 (in millions) $322,574,967

Ralph Nader (3)

$3.7 (in millions)$0.8 (in millions) $4,455,868

Michael Badnarik (L)

$1 (in millions) $1,042,721

Michael Peroutka (3)

$0.7 (in millions) $706,194

David Cobb (3)

$0.4 (in millions) $425,066


ADDENDA: The Power Elite is RICH. How rich??? you may ask. Well... STINKIN' rich. These Capitalists control the Money... and THEY decide who will win elections. They control the courts and they decide what the laws

The GOP serves the interests of the Power Elite, because the GOP is the party of Big Business. Now that the dust has settled, most pundits agree that the progressive wing of the Dems is pretty much finished. So anything you see in the future will be nothing more than GOP-lite... and even then, they STILL won't win elections because the Power Elite has very deep pockets and will mobilize against them even before Iowa or New Hampshire.

Yeah, let's abolish capitalism, communism and all other known political system.

Anarchy shall rule.


:? :?

Whoever Israel TELLS the US it should back. Israel's strategy in this scandalous mess should be obvious to anyone capable of reading between the lines. Israel is simply encouraging the US to wipe out the enemies of Israel... and Israel doesn't even have to lift a finger or spend a dime. The US takes care of everything. The US wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan, then the Sunnis in Iraq. The US supported the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians as well. Iran and Syria will obviously be next on Israel's hit-list.

The Sunnis are finished as a political entity in Iraq. In fact, they are so convinced that the elections are rigged that they aren't even running any candidates.

Tsk tsk tsk

Intentionally forgetting 527's, are we?




You sound like a horny freshman trying to get it on with the hippie girls on campus.

Capitalist is not a dirty word, no matter you try to insinuate.


I have a solution for you: move to Canada.

Oh, nevermind.

Oh, so now it is Israel that made us go into Iraq? Gee, whatever happened to oil?

By the way, mr. "Sunnis are wiped out", did you know that Kurds are Sunnis too?

The candidates' names will be announced in 5 days; I'll be interested to find out how you obtained this advanced information.

Capitalism would flourish under anarchy, actually.

I doubt it.

Consider people like you and me. What makes us tick? We go about out business peacefully, and in the course of a typical day we never give politics a second thought. No political system governs my day-to-day decisions. I say the things I say and do the things I do with Peace of Mind foremost in mind. Within a truly Christian thought-world, everyone is looking after the other guy's interest, so it's always going to be a self-sustaining community. "Love your neighbour as yourself" combined with "Treat others as you would expect others to treat you" and you have the perfect system and the blueprint for world peace.

Unfortunately, he ran into a major problem with the Roman authorities and the bigshots at the Sanhedrin. So what chance does a true Christian have in a Mammon-worshipping world.

To make HIS revolution a success, the supporters of his cause must begin by removing his enemies so that he might live. (That would make them insurrectionists.) To support a popular uprising against the Romans would take generations. It would require infinite patience.

Are we?

At the End, Pro-GOP '527s' Outspent Their Counterparts

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 6, 2004; Page A06

In the final three weeks of the campaign, independent "527" groups backing President Bush bought nearly $30 million worth of television and radio ads, three times what their Democratic counterparts spent, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

This was a reversal of the pattern during the spring and summer months when such pro-Democratic 527s as the Media Fund, MoveOn.org and organized labor spent more than $60 million, matching the Bush campaign at a time when no Republican 527 groups were on the air.

"At the end, Republican 527s reversed the trend from earlier in the year and got ahead of the Democrats, and it definitely appears to have made a difference for Bush, particularly in Ohio," said Alex Knott, political editor of the Center for Public Integrity.

In addition, two Republican 527 groups, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for America, ran ads that, according to surveys, made the strongest impressions on voters in key states.

The Swift Boat Veterans spent less than either of the top two Democratic 527 groups. Yet Swift Boat Veterans ads attacking John F. Kerry's service in Vietnam were recalled by 75 percent of those surveyed by the Republican firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates. Running second to the Swift boat ads in viewer impact was a pro-Bush Progress for America commercial showing 16-year-old Ashley, whose mother was killed during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Using a different methodology, Public Opinion Strategies found that voters in six battleground states were most deeply influenced by three sets of commercials, all either pro-Bush or anti-Kerry: the Swift boat ads, the "Ashley" commercials and "Wolves," an ad produced by the Bush campaign using film of a wolf pack to suggest the threat of terrorism.

The 527 groups, named for a section of the tax code, raised and spent unlimited "soft money" contributions, mostly given by wealthy individuals. Groups active in the presidential race raised at least $175 million, the Center for Public Integrity found.

Overall, the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Republican National Committee raised $684 million, and the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised $627 million, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a campaign finance Web site.

In Senate contests, the Campaign Finance Institute found that fundraising by incumbents in close races shot up 73 percent, from $4.5 million in 2002 to $7.8 million this year, while challenger fundraising in those contests grew 29 percent, from $2.8 million to $3.6 million.

In House elections, the CFI found that for the first time, average spending by winners exceeded $1 million.

One key under-the-radar factor in the Bush and Republican congressional campaigning was an unprecedented effort by the business community to harness the Internet. The Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and other trade groups were aggressive in contacting employees, educating them on pro-business issues and getting them to the polls.

"The effort in this election was truly huge. It was several times bigger and broader than anything done by business before," said Dirk Van Dongen, president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and a leader in business get-out-the-vote efforts. "I truly believe it made a difference at the presidential level, at the senatorial level and at the level of the House."

"I'm always cynical about how much the business community could do," said Dan Danner, top lobbyist for the NFIB. "But this is a place where we delivered and made an impact."

For example, 91 of the Business Roundtable's 160 member companies took part in a program that gave employees political information via the Internet. The program, which was put together by the Business Industry Political Action Committee, or BIPAC, attracted 6.5 million visits to BIPAC sites and produced about 25 million page views. About 800,000 voter registration forms were downloaded, and nearly 800,000 early vote and absentee ballot forms were downloaded.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had a similar system for 75 companies, 230 local chambers of commerce and 95 trade associations. In addition, said executive vice president R. Bruce Josten, the U.S. Chamber sent 20 million e-mails to members and others in eight targeted states that had closely contested Senate campaigns. The U.S. Chamber also sent out about 3 million pieces of direct mail, made 2.1 million phone calls and purchased millions of Web ads that encouraged employees to get out and vote for pro-business and often Republican candidates.

The NFIB also sent out millions of postcards, e-mails and faxes, and made telephone calls to members and others to remind small business owners that they could vote early and that they should vote for pro-small business candidates.

Campaigning by the National Rifle Association also appeared to have an impact. Fourteen of the 18 Senate candidates endorsed by the NRA won. Of the 251 House candidates endorsed by the NRA, 241 won. These numbers come from the NRA.

Emily's List, a liberal Democratic organization that supports abortion rights, won battles if not the war. It supported five of the eight women added to the House. In addition, it took partial credit for the reelection of every Emily's List incumbent, including Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D) and 36 congresswomen. With more than 100,000 contributing members, Emily's List is the nation's largest political action committee. It works to elect Democratic women to federal, state and local office.

Although money was a crucial factor in the outcome of almost all House and Senate races, incumbency bestowed a huge advantage. In nearly a third of House races -- 127 -- the winner was unopposed (30) or faced an opponent with no money (97), the Center for Public Integrity study found.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Nov5.html

Man! I'm mopping up the floor with you today. (Looks like I need a REAL adversary to keep me on my toes.)

Utopias are nice, eh?

"Oh man, those tricksy Republicans: even when they spend less than us, they still manage to spend smarter" - wertham "mopping the floor" with Krem.

Whose fault is it that the left-wing 527's had no retort in the final three weeks? When you have a group that spent $20 million have a more lasting message than a group that spent $70 million, whose fault is it?

Face it, Democrats lost, no amount of your whining will change that.

dp

Holy crap... you didn't even read the article.

Oh well. At least everyone else did.

The Kerry Campaign had NO MONEY to spend in August... so they were very slow to respond to the SWIFT boaters. That killed him. Even Kerry admitted it. (They hadn't budgeted for August; they were saving for Sep-Oct.)

Everyone except you seems to realize that no candidate in US election history has ever been smeared like Kerry was. And the Power Elite has this down to an art. Way in advance of an election they compile a list of all the Dems who might run; then they hire muckrakers to dig up dirt on them (which is what Watergate was all about) and these are the Money Men, so they have deep pockets and they hire armies of thugs to do all this dirty work for them. They're hard to beat.

And if you DO, they'll get their think-tanks in DC to mobilize against you, like they did Clinton. (They spent 40 mil trying to nail him to the cross for the crime of getting a blowjob, you will recall.)

Who do you think has been making the most noise about holding off on the elections?

They said that IF the elections are held in January they won't run any candidates. The whole thing is rigged anyway.

(Elections CAN be rigged, you know.)

Sure did. If there's a part you think I'm missing, why not go ahead and say it.

Who's problem is it? Did you expect Republicans to go - "here, buddy, looks like you have no money right now to run agains us, take some of ours". When you have that much money to spend it helps to hire a good money manager. Otherwise you're just pissing it away.



You realize that the Democratic establishment had 4 years to do the same thing? And please, save me from the speech how Democrats aren't capable of smearing the other guy.

Of course, it's not as if Democrats haven't been helpful in shooting down their own cause. When you have 10 candidates running, who knows what might happen that could potentially backfire in the future.

I should feel sorry for Clinton now?

It's unfortunate that the Sunni triangle musliims don't want to participate in the election process. You have 0 chance of winning if you're not even trying.
However, if you know that the elections are going to be rigged, then you'll have no problem telling me in whose favor.

And once again, repeat after me: Kurds are Sunnis too.