Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper and/or magazine about your support and excitement for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Start by picking your favorite 1-2 writing points.
Well, if they insist:
Dear Editor,
While cruising the internet last night I saw where John Kerry's website was encouraging us to write to the editor of newspapers concerning the Kerry-Edwards ticket. The website even included some talking points to help us along.
John Edwards shares John Kerry's optimistic vision for the future of the country.
Well, considering that he feels that the so-called loss of jobs is a bad thing (nevermind that there has actually been a large increase in good paying jobs and unemployment is at the low levels during the Clinton administration), President Bush has supposedly hurt us in the worlds opinion by standing up for our interests, the federal debt is due to the tax cuts (even though the current outlook is for a surplus due to the taxcuts), etc., he does not sound to optimistic to me. If Edwards shares these off the wall views, then that is scary.
John Edwards knows first hand the importance of creating good paying jobs so that all American families can get ahead because he comes from a place where those jobs have disappeared under President Bush.
I guess he does share those twisted views I spoke of earlier. I find it odd that he included this considering that Edwards is a millionaire and Kerry is a billionaire.
John Edwards has been a leader in the fight for affordable, quality health care, fighting alongside Kerry to pass a Patients Bill of Rights and bring down the cost of prescription drugs.
I find this odd as well since he voted against the "Bipartisan Patient Protection Act" H R 2563 on August 2, 2001.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Committee Investigating 9/11, John Edwards understands the problems that threaten our world today and shares Kerry's vision of how to make America safer and more respected around the globe.
Since he was on that committee I am sure he knew about the Sandy Berger investigation involving sticking highly classified documents into his pants, jacket and socks, taking them home and destroying them, but yet, he still saw Berger as a wise enough person to have as an advisor and some say on the short list of possible Sec. of State.
Same with Jamie Gorelick, another Kerry-Edwards advisor, who made it virtually impossible for U.S. authorities to stop Ahmed Rassam, the "Millenium Bomber," by design or intention. We had to rely on pure luck to catch him and the incriminating evidence just happens to be what was "accidentally" destroyed by Berger.
He should have also known that Joe Wilson was lieing about the president as well. Joe Wilson is another advisor to the Kerry-Edwards team.
John Edwards believes in order to make America strong and secure, we must have a strong military and energy independence so that no American in uniform is ever held hostage to our dependence on Mideast oil.
Then why did he vote “No” to $5 billion to improve security immediately by training border and customs enforcement personnel, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps, $300 million for life-saving body armor and $140 million to deliver heavily armored “Humvees” to protect U.S. forces?
Why is this team against the drilling in a small part of ANWAR that was originally set aside for just that purpose?
By the way, which "American in uniform" was ever "held hostage to our dependence on Mideast oil"? I assume he is talking about events in Iraq which has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with a brutal dictator that ignored U.N. rules.
Well Mr. Kerry, there is my letter to the editor that you requested. I hope you find it informative.
John Edwards has been a leader in the fight for affordable, quality health care, fighting alongside Kerry to pass a Patients Bill of Rights and bring down the cost of prescription drugs.
John Edwards has been a major player in bringing unacceptably high costs to health care due to his profession as a lawyer suing doctors for causing cerebral palsey in newborns, of which there is virtually no evidence.
 Call it what ever you want but the rationale behind the change of venue is crystal clear. Do you have any other ideas as to why plaintiff's attorney's want to move their trials to those locations?
"This is Democratic bedrock: we don't let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here on the frozen tundra of Minnesota, if your neighbor's car won't start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat. A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
My guess is democrats are more likely to pass by someone in the ditch without stopping. They think government should handle the problem. Instead of stopping they would probably get on their cell phone and call their legislature to solve the problem.
Hundreds of cases are moved to Kansas City or St. Louis each year because juries are purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs.
The legislation is an important step in tort reform, guaranteeing an equitable venue for plaintiffs and defendants, according to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, which testified in support of the bill.
Senate Bill 437 would provide a four-part test for circuit court judges to follow when considering the transfer or dismissal of a cause of action. The proposed law would require judges to consider where the cause of action happened, the location of parties, the location of witnesses and sources of proof, and the burden on the court, taxpayers and residents of the county where the action was filed.
"Dozens of national parks are jeopardized by the Bush Administration's plans to open up nearly 60 million acres of currently roadless federal lands adjacent to parks for the purposes of logging, road building and oil and gas drilling, according to a new report that will be released on July 28, 2004, by the Campaign to Protect America's Lands and the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees.
"The list of more than two dozen at-risk national parks includes: Badlands National Park (SD); Blue Ridge Parkway (NC, VA); Bryce Canyon National Park (UT); Carlsbad Caverns National Park (NM); Chiricahua National Monument (AZ); Glacier Bay National Park (AK); Grand Teton National Park (WY); Great Basin National Park (NV); Guadalupe Mountains National Park (TX); Sequoia & Kings Canyon Nat'l Parks(CA); Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks (WA); Oregon Caves National Monument (OR); Rocky Mountain National Park (CO); Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND); Yellowstone National Park (WY, ID, MT); and Yosemite National Park (CA).
"The negative impacts would include detrimental effects on wildlife migration and habitat, loss of viewscapes, incursion of disease, damage to river systems and fish populations and introduction of invasive species."
Trout streams are particularly suseptable to road construction. Trout rely on cool, clear water to flourish and reproduce.
And i suppose all those evil logging, road building, gas and oil companies will do nothing but rape the land and leave.
Open them up and also allow atv use. The end-game for the envirowackows is not to allow anything or anyone in any national park. Not even a footprint on mother earth's forest floor.
Not suprising that libs fall for those types of e-mails.
Some time ago I posted a quote from a Sierra Club person who admitted that they exaggerate and try to scare people in order to get their agenda enacted.
People concerned about pollution have done a good job in the past bringing it to people's attention. The air and water in this country are considerably cleaner than they used to be, and getting cleaner all the time. I truly thank the people who made it happen.
But environmentalism has become increasingly strident and far less concerned about individual rights and private property than they used to be. They're becoming whack jobs and I'm less inclined to listen to them than I used to. I don't think I'm alone. And it's too bad, because the original message is still a good one: We are the stewards of the earth and we should take care of it.
that's weird that you think it's the environmentalists who are the wackjobs...I remember with Reagan how he appointed Watt to oversee our environment and Watt believed that we shoulduse up our environmental resources as quickly as possible because the Rapture was coming anyway and we should use the planet up before then.
I can't speak for Muskwa but I'd say it crosses the line when they burn down car dealerships. McDonalds resturaunts, splash blood on people etc. to make a point. Many of the activists do have an agenda that sometimes has little to do with the enviroment.
Nobody I know wants dirty lakes or polluted air. There has to be a balance. Decisions should be based on solid research and science as well. Â
When does simple concern for the environment cross the line into the dangerous and dishonest world of "whackoism." He wasn't referring to those with a "simple concern for the environment."Â
I'm guessing it's commerce. If an environmental initiative costs A) money or B) jobs, well, only a whacko could be in favor of that. I don't think you understood what he actually said. The democrat dogma getting in your way
Decisions should be based on solid research and science as well
or in Reagan's case (and I wonder what born-again GW thinks about it), based on the belief that we should use all the resources as fast as possible so we are wealthy when the Rapture comes.
Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper and/or magazine about your support and excitement for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Start by picking your favorite 1-2 writing points.
Well, if they insist:
Dear Editor,
While cruising the internet last night I saw where John Kerry's website was encouraging us to write to the editor of newspapers concerning the Kerry-Edwards ticket. The website even included some talking points to help us along.
Well, considering that he feels that the so-called loss of jobs is a bad thing (nevermind that there has actually been a large increase in good paying jobs and unemployment is at the low levels during the Clinton administration), President Bush has supposedly hurt us in the worlds opinion by standing up for our interests, the federal debt is due to the tax cuts (even though the current outlook is for a surplus due to the taxcuts), etc., he does not sound to optimistic to me. If Edwards shares these off the wall views, then that is scary.
John Edwards knows first hand the importance of creating good paying jobs so that all American families can get ahead because he comes from a place where those jobs have disappeared under President Bush.
I guess he does share those twisted views I spoke of earlier. I find it odd that he included this considering that Edwards is a millionaire and Kerry is a billionaire.
I find this odd as well since he voted against the "Bipartisan Patient Protection Act" H R 2563 on August 2, 2001.
Since he was on that committee I am sure he knew about the Sandy Berger investigation involving sticking highly classified documents into his pants, jacket and socks, taking them home and destroying them, but yet, he still saw Berger as a wise enough person to have as an advisor and some say on the short list of possible Sec. of State.
Same with Jamie Gorelick, another Kerry-Edwards advisor, who made it virtually impossible for U.S. authorities to stop Ahmed Rassam, the "Millenium Bomber," by design or intention. We had to rely on pure luck to catch him and the incriminating evidence just happens to be what was "accidentally" destroyed by Berger.
He should have also known that Joe Wilson was lieing about the president as well. Joe Wilson is another advisor to the Kerry-Edwards team.
John Edwards believes in order to make America strong and secure, we must have a strong military and energy independence so that no American in uniform is ever held hostage to our dependence on Mideast oil.
Then why did he vote “No” to $5 billion to improve security immediately by training border and customs enforcement personnel, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps, $300 million for life-saving body armor and $140 million to deliver heavily armored “Humvees” to protect U.S. forces?
Why is this team against the drilling in a small part of ANWAR that was originally set aside for just that purpose?
By the way, which "American in uniform" was ever "held hostage to our dependence on Mideast oil"? I assume he is talking about events in Iraq which has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with a brutal dictator that ignored U.N. rules.
Well Mr. Kerry, there is my letter to the editor that you requested. I hope you find it informative.
heh-heh
Buy yourself a damned newspaper, jethro! Then liberals won't have to answer.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 7/20/04 4:32pm
Thanks Grandpa Dan.
I wanted to do something similiar, but didn't have the time.
John Edwards has been a major player in bringing unacceptably high costs to health care due to his profession as a lawyer suing doctors for causing cerebral palsey in newborns, of which there is virtually no evidence.
That reads like Edwards is knocking on the door of doctors and hospitals demanding shakedown money.
He can't get it without a jury verdict.
He can't get it without a jury verdict.
They are not hard to get. There are some places that a defendant in such cases has almost no chance of winning a case.
"They are not hard to get."
You gotta have a case and evidence.
You gotta have a case and evidence.
In some places about the only thing you have to have is a case number and a place on the docket.
Why do you say that?
Why do you say that?
Because it is true. Here is an example: http://www.morankikerbrown.com/CM/Articles/plaintifffriendly.asp
Why do you think Missouri plaintiff's attorneys want to go to St. Louis or Kansas City?
http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/03/19/daily5.html
Sometimes the filing of a lawsuit is all that is needed for an out of court settlement. No trial. No admission of wrong-doing. Lawyer gets a third.
Mississippi, St. Louis and Kansas City;
"Hundreds of cases are moved to Kansas City or St. Louis each year because juries are purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs."
I hope "purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs" is not becoming some new racial code phrase.
 Call it what ever you want but the rationale behind the change of venue is crystal clear. Do you have any other ideas as to why plaintiff's attorney's want to move their trials to those locations?
Oh-Oh, another liberal cause.
Three Hips and three Horrays!
"This is Democratic bedrock: we don't let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here on the frozen tundra of Minnesota, if your neighbor's car won't start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat. A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
My guess is democrats are more likely to pass by someone in the ditch without stopping. They think government should handle the problem. Instead of stopping they would probably get on their cell phone and call their legislature to solve the problem.
Keillor is full of himself as always.
I hope "purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs" is not becoming some new racial code phrase.
Are you saying minorities are more sypathetic?
You racist!
I'm sure this will be on everyone's reading list
Rick, are you saying only minorities are more sypathetic?
No, I'm not.
Treatment paid for by the conservative's employer insurance no doubt.
Hey, where can i get some of those programs to pay my bills. I've paid for others long enough. What about me? Gimmee-gimmee-gimmee.
"No, I'm not."
Then what exactly does this mean?
"I hope "purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs" is not becoming some new racial code phrase."
I was taking a phrase from one of jethro's links. I'm not sure what it means, exactly.
I think it really means that certain jury pools are hostile to big business and deep pockets.
Well, the text of the article didn't mention race at all. So why did you?
Â
http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/03/19/daily5.html
Hundreds of cases are moved to Kansas City or St. Louis each year because juries are purportedly sympathetic to working-class plaintiffs.
The legislation is an important step in tort reform, guaranteeing an equitable venue for plaintiffs and defendants, according to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, which testified in support of the bill.
Senate Bill 437 would provide a four-part test for circuit court judges to follow when considering the transfer or dismissal of a cause of action. The proposed law would require judges to consider where the cause of action happened, the location of parties, the location of witnesses and sources of proof, and the burden on the court, taxpayers and residents of the county where the action was filed.
I think I misinterpreted most everything in those two stories. Forget I mentioned it.
Here's the best article I've ever seen on the subject:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/malcolmwallop/mw20020925.shtml
Â
Townhall?! You Fascist!
Oops -- my true colors are showing!
I got this in the e-mail today:
"Dozens of national parks are jeopardized by the Bush Administration's plans to open up nearly 60 million acres of currently roadless federal lands adjacent to parks for the purposes of logging, road building and oil and gas drilling, according to a new report that will be released on July 28, 2004, by the Campaign to Protect America's Lands and the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees.
"The list of more than two dozen at-risk national parks includes: Badlands National Park (SD); Blue Ridge Parkway (NC, VA); Bryce Canyon National Park (UT); Carlsbad Caverns National Park (NM); Chiricahua National Monument (AZ); Glacier Bay National Park (AK); Grand Teton National Park (WY); Great Basin National Park (NV); Guadalupe Mountains National Park (TX); Sequoia & Kings Canyon Nat'l Parks(CA); Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks (WA); Oregon Caves National Monument (OR); Rocky Mountain National Park (CO); Theodore Roosevelt National Park (ND); Yellowstone National Park (WY, ID, MT); and Yosemite National Park (CA).
"The negative impacts would include detrimental effects on wildlife migration and habitat, loss of viewscapes, incursion of disease, damage to river systems and fish populations and introduction of invasive species."
Trout streams are particularly suseptable to road construction. Trout rely on cool, clear water to flourish and reproduce.
And people need jobs to flourish and reproduce.
And i suppose all those evil logging, road building, gas and oil companies will do nothing but rape the land and leave.
Open them up and also allow atv use. The end-game for the envirowackows is not to allow anything or anyone in any national park. Not even a footprint on mother earth's forest floor.
Not suprising that libs fall for those types of e-mails.
The environmentalists have always done Sky-Is-Falling rhetoric. It's the only way they can get attention.
Some time ago I posted a quote from a Sierra Club person who admitted that they exaggerate and try to scare people in order to get their agenda enacted.
People concerned about pollution have done a good job in the past bringing it to people's attention. The air and water in this country are considerably cleaner than they used to be, and getting cleaner all the time. I truly thank the people who made it happen.
But environmentalism has become increasingly strident and far less concerned about individual rights and private property than they used to be. They're becoming whack jobs and I'm less inclined to listen to them than I used to. I don't think I'm alone. And it's too bad, because the original message is still a good one: We are the stewards of the earth and we should take care of it.
that's weird that you think it's the environmentalists who are the wackjobs...I remember with Reagan how he appointed Watt to oversee our environment and Watt believed that we shoulduse up our environmental resources as quickly as possible because the Rapture was coming anyway and we should use the planet up before then.
talk about you whackos.
"They're becoming whack jobs....talk about you whackos."
When does simple concern for the environment cross the line into the dangerous and dishonest world of "whackoism."
I'm guessing it's commerce. If an environmental initiative costs A) money or B) jobs, well, only a whacko could be in favor of that.
Â
I can't speak for Muskwa but I'd say it crosses the line when they burn down car dealerships. McDonalds resturaunts, splash blood on people etc. to make a point. Many of the activists do have an agenda that sometimes has little to do with the enviroment.
Nobody I know wants dirty lakes or polluted air. There has to be a balance. Decisions should be based on solid research and science as well. Â
When does simple concern for the environment cross the line into the dangerous and dishonest world of "whackoism." He wasn't referring to those with a "simple concern for the environment."Â
I'm guessing it's commerce. If an environmental initiative costs A) money or B) jobs, well, only a whacko could be in favor of that. I don't think you understood what he actually said. The democrat dogma getting in your way
or in Reagan's case (and I wonder what born-again GW thinks about it), based on the belief that we should use all the resources as fast as possible so we are wealthy when the Rapture comes.
Well I don't believe that and I don't think W believes that.
that's what James Watt and Ronald Reagan believed.
it's not uncommon for Bible literalists to draw those conclusions.
GW is a "born-again", isn't he?
Once again, fold was there and saw it all. As usual, he dredges up crap from the 60's.
and don't forget about the burning down of ski lodges by the "environmentalists".
GW is a "born-again", isn't he?
So is Edwards. Kerry is Catholic, so I guess that he is a nut job as well?
Catholic...absolutely...as much a whack job as someone overly concerned with their evironment at the very least....and "born-again"...same deal.
So I guess you will be voting for Nader?
Nader isn't even a politician.
A whack job, a born again and a non-politician. Who is your choice for president then?
pretty much gotta go with Zippy The Pinhead at this point.
not that I believe there are actually gonna be any more real elections anymore.
seeings how my first choice up and died on me...