Wednesday, October 18, 2006

NEVER DRINK THE KOOL-ADE BEFORE YOU VOTE.....IT COULD HAMPER YOUR JUDGEMENT

DEAR READERS:

IN MY LAST LETTER TO THE NORTH COUNTY NEWS(THAT I SENT OUT TO YOU) WHERE I OUTLINE MY REASON'S FOR NOT VOTING FOR THE INCUMBENT STATE SENATOR VINCENT LEIBELL, CERTIAN READERS HAVE TAKEN THIS AS A REASON TO DO THE SAME IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION. FAR FROM IT! IN FACT THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO. IN OUR STATE LEGISLATOR THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS CAN FIT ON THE HEAD OF A PIN AND STILL HAVE ROOM FOR THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. THE ONLY TRUE PARTIES THAT HAVE ANY CONVICTIONS LEFT THAT THEY WILL FIGHT FOR ARE THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY, AND EVEN THEY WILL SELL THERE SOULS(ON OCCASION) FOR BALLOT ACCESS. HOWEVER ON THE CONGRESSIONAL SIDE THE DIFFERENCE IS NIGHT AND DAY. FOR ALL THOSE WHO CAN'T WAIT TO SEND BUSH A MESSAGE AND VOTE FOR JOHN HALL IN HOPES OF A DEMOCRAT TAKEOVER OF CONGRESS, THINKING YOU WILL FINALLY HAVE CHANGE AND A CHANCE FOR BETTER HEALTH CARE AND MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION, ALSO SAVE A TREE OR TWO, AND OF COURSE CLOSE INDIAN POINT, MY LAST LETTER TO THE JOURNAL NEWS(WHICH I ALSO SENT YOU)SHOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU A HINT THAT THOSE THINGS WILL NOT HAPPEN. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE PARALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR. THIS PARALIZATION WILL TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA OF THE DEMCATIC HOUSE LEADERSHIP (SHOULD THE DEMORATS TAKE OVER) IS "HOUSE RESOLUTION 635" INTRODUCED BY FUTURE HOUSE JUDIARY COMMITTE HEAD JOHN CONYERS CALLING FOR THE CREATION OF A SELECT COMMITTE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATIONS MANIPULATION OF PRE-WAR INTELEGENCE, THE ENCOURAGING OF TORTURE AND RETALIATING AGAINST CRITICS IN THE RUN UP TO WAR. THIS RESOLUTION HAS 38 DEMOCRATIC CO-SPONSORS NOW, AND IT IS TO MAKE RECOMENDATIONS REGARDING THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHANEY. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, YOU WILL ALSO RECALL HOW GOVERNMENT GROUND TO A HALT WITH CHARGES FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU WILL ALSO RECALL THAT THIS PARALIZATION HELPED MOVE FOWARD THE WAR WE ARE IN, BY OUR INACTION. NOTHING WILL GET DONE IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS AS CONGRESS FIGHTS OVER THIS, EXCEPT UNLIKE THE LAST TIME, THIS TIME
WE ARE A NATION AT WAR! NOW IF YOU ARE OF THE BELIEF, LIKE FUTURE HOUSE LEADER (SHOULD THE DEMCRATS WIN) NANCY PELOSI THAT WE ARE NOT REALLLY AT WAR, THIS IS REALLY A POLICE MATTER, THE THIS SHOULD NOT BOTHER YOU A WHIT. HOWEVER IF YOU ARE OF THE BELIEF THAT WE ARE REALLY AT WAR, THEN THIS SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE TO THINK. WARS ARE NOT FOUGHT IN THE ABSTRACT, THEY ARE FOUGHT IN REAL TIME WITH REAL CONSEQUENCES SHOULD WE LOSE. YOUR VOTE IN THIS YEARS CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION WILL DICTATE THE FUTURE COURSE WE WILL FOLLOW.
*************************************************************************************
POLITICS IN PUTNAM VALLEY HAS TURNED BITTER, AS THE CONTINUING SAGA OF PUTNAM COUNTY SUPERVISOR
SAM DAVIS' HIRING OF HIS LIVE-IN GIRL FRIEND WON'T GO AWAY AS IT SHOULD. THE PUTNAM VALLEY ETHICS COMMITTE HAS ALREADY FOUND THAT SAM DAVIS DID NOTHING ILEAGAL. THAT IS THE SALIENT POINT. SO NOW THE PUTNAM VALLEY COUNCIL WISHES TO MAKE WHAT HE DID NOT ONLY ILEAGAL BUT MAKE IT RETROACTIVE. THIS CRIMINALZATION OF ACTIONS THAT DISPLEASE IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE AND WOULD HAVE SERIOUS CONSQUENCES DOWN THE ROAD SHOULD THE POWER STRUCTURE CHANGE (WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER). THE ONLY PROPER PLACE TO CHANGE THAT WICH YOU WOULD FIND DISPLEASING IS IN THE NEXT ELECTION, NOT ENACTING A RETROACTIVE LAW. THE PUTNAM VALLEY COUNCIL SHOULD INSTEAD BE CONCENTRATING ON MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE TOWN. THIS IS PURE PETTY POLITICS AND THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS ON THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE RESOUNDLY RETIRED FROM OFFICE IN THE NEXT ELECTION FOR WASTING THE TAXPAYERS TIME AND MONEY.

BAZZO 10/18/06

3 comments:

rook said...

If dealing with terrorism as a "police action" rather than a "war" is what Nancy Pelosi is advocating, then I fully support her as well as John Hall if he agrees with that assertion. It is increasingly obvious the Bush's "War on Terror" is a Failure, one which has only increased the amount of terrorism in our world. The Iraq Conflict has only exacerbated terrorism generating from the Middle East as pointed out by the Intelligence Communities. Dropping bombs on sovereign nations like Iraq in order to take out our frustrations will only serve to encourage anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Bush's "No Talk" policy on North Korea is also an obvious failure, as Kim Jung Il has repeatedly stated throughout Bush's tenure that his nation was contructing nuclear weapons. Now that the impoverished nation of North Korea joins the small community of nuclear armed states, Bush has instituted NO CHANGE in his policy. While this may serve to "save face" and "look tough" on his previously embarassing failed policy to prevent this "Axis of Evil" member from obtaining nuclear weapons, it does little in the way of actually providing more security such as confiscating those weapons, preventing their use, or their transfer to terrorist organizations. Sanctions won't do shit. It is well known that China is pretty much the sole supplier of the small North Korean economy. Sanctions will only facilitate the further suffering of the North Korean people because the Pyongyang takes what it needs and then throws the bones to the people. Therefore, there is an obvious need for CHANGE in U.S. policy with regards to International Challegenges, and Bush is a NO CHANGE, STAY THE COURSE, WON'T CHANGE MY MIND AS LONG AS MY DOG SUPPORTS ME, PRESIDENT. Sue Kelly, like most of her Rank and File Republican colleagues, have done nothing to oppose Bush's insane foreign policy, not even mentioning his problematic domestic shortcomings. John Hall, a member of the Democratic Party, at least advocates change. However deep or ineffective it may or may not be, it is better than not doing anything at all and Rubber Stamping Failure.

Bill the CPA said...

Some quick rebuttals to rook:

1. “Terrorism as a police action” = FAILED POLICY. We tried this method after the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It didn't prevent 9/11. (1993 - Bill Clinton, President)
2. "Iraq Conflict has only exacerbated terrorism..." =
First of all, this is a WAR, not a conflict. Why is it that liberals refuse to allow the word "war" in their vocabulary? Secondly, do you really think terrorism would go away if we weren't in Iraq? Besides, Saddam was a threat to the world (remember, John Kerry said so). As part of his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had to allow UN weapons inspectors in. He kicked them out in 1998, and the world did nothing. (1998 -- Bill Clinton, President)
3. "John Hall ... advocates change". And what exactly is that change? The fact that he is a Democrat? Is that all that qualifies as a change? (Bill Clinton - Democrat)

Peekskillian said...

This isn't a war, because the Congress never passed a resolution for war. There hasn't been a war declared since World War II. The President could have asked for a declaration of war, but chose not to, because that would have provided the Congress with more authority over the action, as the Congress, according to the original intent of the Constitution (here's where Conservatives forget about their love for original intent)is the only body that can declare war. But this president likes to use the word war in order to make those who question his actions unpatriotic. This is not a war by definition. This is a military action, poorly defined, and without an end game. Call it an action or a conflict, but it's not a war except in the context of making people who question it feel as though they are somehow unAmerican.

Have conservatives learned nothing from this election? You failed because you have no guiding principles. You're pro-life and pro-death penalty. Your anti-big government and reined over the largest expansion of the federal government in history (not to mention love to have the government pry into your private lives). You talk about fiscal conservatism, but have generated the largest deficit in the history of the United States. This is why conservatives are doomed in the country, because they really don't exist. "Conservatives" did whatever they thought was necessary to maintain power, without any consideration for the principles of conservatism.