Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (642513)	10/11/2004 9:49:51 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Your post was dismissed as drivel... GZ

To: E. T. who wrote (642513)	10/11/2004 9:57:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769670

Series: 21 Reasons to Elect Kerry (First in a series of 21 reasons to elect John Kerry) Polluters are being let off the hook philly.com The differences between the presidential candidates on the environment are as clear as air. President Bush has spent 3½ years gutting the Clean Air Act to please industry lobbyists. John Kerry has worked 30 years to strengthen it. Just this month, government investigators concluded that the Bush administration has let old coal-fired power plants off the hook for pollution that triggers asthma attacks and shortens lives. Our region gets a heavy wallop of such pollution from plants to the west. The latest critique, following on several from Congress' watchdog agency, comes from the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency. The inspector general urged EPA administrator Michael O. Leavitt to reconsider the industry-friendly proposals "in an open, public and transparent manner." That would be refreshing. The regulation in question was weakened as a result of Vice President Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force. Lawsuits still seek to find out who had Cheney's ear in 2001. But revisions by Leavitt's hand are unlikely, unless they're compelled by a another lawsuit filed by 14 outraged states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Leavitt's spokeswoman brushed off the inspector general. The EPA was taking many steps to reduce pollution, she said. Leavitt wants credit for a program that doesn't exist yet - Bush's "Clear Skies" Initiative, touted in the 2003 State of the Union address. One problem: It hasn't made it to Congress yet. The administration claims the market-based program would result in significant pollution reductions at little cost. That's not so. EPA staff's analyses, concealed until Congress and the media demanded them, show that competing plans in Congress would be as cost-effective and improve public health faster. So EPA is trying to slip parts of "Clear Skies" through the back door - by agency regulations, which don't need congressional approval. One of those changes, too, has drawn an inspector general investigation. Its terms appear to have been literally dictated by industry. Passages of a proposed rule on mercury pollution mirror memos written by a law firm that represents power plants. What's more, it's the former firm of Jeffrey R. Holmstead, EPA's senior air quality official. This isn't how a landmark environmental law, passed under President Nixon and expanded under President George H.W. Bush, should be enforced. As Massachusetts lieutenant governor in the 1980s, Kerry helped shape the Clean Air Act's acid-rain program, an environmental success story. As a senator in the 1990s, he led the fight against rollbacks attempted by the Gingrich Congress. In the most recent Congress, he supported the most stringent bills regulating power-plant pollution. John Kerry sides with healthy lungs; George Bush with happy industry. Take a deep breath and choose.

To: E. T. who wrote (642513)	10/11/2004 12:15:40 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 769670

kerry sold out our MIAs and POWs so his cousin of Collier International could make a buck in Vietnam....what planet are you from? powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com John Kerry sold out our Prisoners of War and Missing in Action in favor of Trade Relations with Vietnam. Why? In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why? All we need to do is look at two events which occurred shortly after the committee presented its finding, in January 1993. Francis Zwenig, staff director for the Committee, who was often seen during hearings whispering in Kerry's ear, became Vice President of the U.S. - Vietnam Trade Council. Ms Zwenig, who helped shaped the conclusion of the committee and its final report was now benefitting financially from the committee's efforts to close the POW/MIA issue. In June of 1993, as reported in a Boston Herald article by Michael E. Knell, "Colliers International brokered a $905 million dollar deal to develop a deep sea port in Vietnam.." To skirt the trade embargo still in effect against Vietnam, Colliers International acted through its partner firm Colliers Jardine based in Singapore. At the time the deal was brokered, C. Stewart Forbes was the Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International. All through 1993 and into early 1994, John Kerry pushed for the lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam, citing of Vietnamese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. As evidenced in the articles of Sydney Schanberg and scripted event involving Senator Kerry and Col. Pham Duc Dia, Vietnamese cooperation was clearly a myth. Yet, Kerry persisted in his campaign to lift the trade embargo. Finally, his efforts were rewarded in February 1994, when President Clinton lifted the embargo. Did Kerry have an another agenda, beyond the stated goals of the committee? Before you answer that question, there is one other piece of information you need to know. C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International and John Forbes Kerry are cousins. Did financial gain motivate Kerry's actions as Chairman of the Select Committee? Perhaps someone in the media will ask the question.