November 2, 2004 = All Republicans vote.
November 3, 2004 = All Democrats vote.

This schedule will minimize the interaction between the two severely divided groups and reduce the likelyhood of fights between the two groups while waiting in line to vote.

But so long as the thought took flight elsewhere, I must disagree with Mr. Little Train's position that this upcoming election outcome will affect Amtrak.

Our 'democratic republic' system of government has evolved in such manner so that, regardless of which major party contender, or for that matter, even if Yogi Bear wins a clandestine surprise grass-roots write in vote campaign, he who sitteth in that oval room at 1600, has no bearing on Amtrak's future.

Amtrak's appropriation has always been "wrapped" into the Omnibus Spending Bill, which is that bill the conservatives will always label the "pig roast'(bot sure, but I would guess the liberals will say it is elected representatives doing the people's business). Not only is Amtrak contained within, but so is all the needed (OK, maybe within one constituency out there) things like a study of catfish mating habits (don't they just do it???) and a National Cowgirl Museum.

Because Executive (the President) line item veto power has never come to pass, Amtrak, along with the cowgirls and catfish, are served up to the President in a take it or leave it package. Since both of the preceeding could well have been sponsored by legislators from a key swing state that a President can ill-afford to alienate, the catfish will "do it" and the cowgirls will yodel "Happy Trails" with UENI picking up the tab.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
...he who sitteth in that oval room at 1600, has no bearing on Amtrak's future.

---

I agree.

I think we should start lobbying Condoleeza Rice right now, so when she's elected in 2008, she might be fully "on board" with an Amtrak expansion and/or Interstate II.

Condi in Eight?

That's a first, Mr. Smith

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
Off Topic--

Condi in Eight?

That's a first, Mr. Smith

Have yet to see that in my daily read of the New York Times.

---

It will likely be Edwards in '08 Mr. Norman, and do you really read The New York Slimes? :^(

Aside from that, I heartily agree with your previous post on this thread about Amtrak included in an omnibus spending bill.

Not a dime's worth of difference as to who sits in the Oval Office where Amtrak is concerned.

It's representatives who make things happen, like the folks in Texas who pushed for the Eagle and other innovations in the Lone Star State.

Those are the folks we need to pester with e-mails, snailmail, faxes and landline calls.

In 2006, after we have convinced Iran and Syria to take out the terrorists that were in "safe harbor" in their respective countries, VP Cheney will retire, allowing President Bush to nominate Ms. Rice for the VP position. This should happen in July or August of 2006. The Democrats in the Senate will be forced to approve her nomination or face the rath of the voters in November.

VP Rice will have two full years to prove herself and effectively kill Hillary's attempt at the White House.

Ms. Rice is articulate, intelligent, personable, talented, and pleasant. She should be a slam-dunk win in 2008.

Ref: VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)

A most interesting sojourn gigglig about.

And you are correct about my lack of a subscription to the "paper of record" for the DNC, commonly known as the NYT. {poke}

Quite enlightening for thes liberal leaning New York raised, New York Times reading, soul.

I would probably lean toward the Democrat Party had it not totally degenerated into the cesspool of swill that it is today.

My ancestors were Southern Democrats (better known decades ago as Dixiecrats), but those days are gone with the wind.

For those of you like me who like to get NON-partison evaluations of current political claims, I recommend www.factcheck.org.

I know, I know. Way off topic. But if Istook has his way, we might lose some LD trains and I see no evidence Mr. Bush will stand in his way. And anyone who votes Republican because of national security is really not looking at facts objectively. For Republicans to control all branches of government for years to come means a national rail system will have to fight for survival every year.

The Bush Administration's idea of the "reforms" that are necessary in order to secure Amtrak funding are based on the states assuming more responsibility. Without going into detail, I see this as a flawed and unworkable model where LD trains will lose. Kerry has gone on record in support of Amtrak. When Bush was gov, he claimed passenger rail funding was the responsibility of the Feds. Who is the proven flip-flopper.

If I read your posting correctly, you believe that Rep. Ernest Istook (R-5th-OK) would force language to be written into the Amtrak appropriations provision of a future Omnibus Spending Bill that would enable him to unilaterally decide that Amtrak must kill a particular route or service.

I think that position is far fetched. Note Rep Istook only chairs a subcommittee that mainly concerns the White House, i.e. the building. I realize his "puff page' suggests he is a "czar" that can control funding on any transportation measure, but I think that "power" is a bit overblown. Lest we forget, that SUB reports to a full committee of which he hardly is Chairman. That honor goes to Rep CW Young (R-10th-FL), who be assured, is a might bit "senior to the Sooner".

In the meantime, Rep. Istook has to deal with colleagues who are a might bit more pro-Amtrak than apparently is he.

Kerry has also "gone on record" some years ago supporting the Viet Cong. He is also pro-abortion and pro-UN. "Going on record" means absolutely zilch in political speeches and agendas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dixiebreeze:
"Kerry has also "gone on record" some years ago supporting the Viet Cong. He is also pro-abortion and pro-UN.

---

Kerry opposed the Vietnam War...he did not support the VietCong and he is pro-choice not pro abortion.

A matter of semantics. I stand by my statements.

My reference to Rep. Istook were based on the following from the most recent online NARP newsletter:

"National Journal Daily AM reported that Rep. John Olver (D-MA) said Amtrak “can’t end the [2005] fiscal year and still maintain its operations and maintenance needs,” and that Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) said the House would continue to treat Amtrak this way until needed “reforms” are made—[NJDAM paraphrasing Istook] “mainly by ending unprofitable long-distance services to cities in the hinterlands.”

Your knowledge of who really has the power in DC is obviously more extensive than mine, but I took this to be a very omninous threat, which was very similar to the current administration thinking when "reforms" are mentioned. Sorry if I overreacted.

quote:

---

I feel it is not patriotic to call for dissent.[/B ] [QUOTE]

STRONGLY disagree. For example, the Patriot Act as currently written is overboard Govt snooping. It is not wise to write laws like this that assumes everyone could be a terrorist. MP

[QUOTE] Freedom is not free.[/B]

---

STRONGLY agree.

[This message has been edited by MPALMER (edited 07-25-2004).]

Kerry killed Vietnamese, some of which might have been VietCong.

Dissent is American as apple pie. Lies, extreme hyperbole, and ignorant innuendoes are providing aid and comfort to our enemies.
Some people don't know the difference.

If you are worried about the Patriot Act, read it. Don't believe all the lies, hyperbole, and innuendoes attributed to the Act. (If you have specific worries, tell me what section they are in, and I'll explain what that section means.)

Kerry is pro-life and pro-abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikesmith:

If you are worried about the Patriot Act, read it. (If you have specific worries, tell me what section they are in, and I'll explain what that section means.)

---

Irritated would be a better word. There is no "cost-benefit analysis", which is unfortunately typical of legislation passed by Congress.

It is specifically sections 311 and 326 that irritate me. If I add $400 to my existing savings account, no one is the wiser (no one cares). If I set up a new sub-account with the $400 [say, for a Christmas fund] there is all kinds of nosy paperwork, including ANOTHER form with my SSN, that I need to fill out for "the Patriot Act". It is that type of nonsense that irritates me.

I never was a terrorist; never will be. In fact, I readily continued flying on business trips for my employer in November '01, December '01 on onward, when many other people understandably were afraid to fly. It was my way of "flipping terrorists the bird." Flight 93 changed everything. I board every flight with the idea that -- should a hijacking happen -- I'm willing to join in with the other passengers to do what ever it takes to fight back.

I do not object to the extended search lines and the other luggage checks. Airplanes have been shown to be vulnerable.

But when you are just trying to add a savings account at an institution you have been with for 19 years, don'tcha think if I was a bad guy I would have done something "bad" by now?!?

`(b) SPECIAL MEASURES- The special measures referred to in subsection (a), with respect to a jurisdiction outside of the United States {key phrase}, financial institution operating outside of the United States, class of transaction within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts are as follows: <end quote>

The entire Patriot Act can be found at the following link: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6A021496

Section 326 deals with identification of the person opening an account. This section adds the requirement that a bank check the list of known or suspected terrorists as maintained by the government. Here are the pertinent requirements:

`(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS- The regulations shall, at a minimum, require financial institutions to implement, and customers (after being given adequate notice) to comply with, reasonable procedures for--

`(A) verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable;

`(B) maintaining records of the information used to verify a person's identity, including name, address, and other identifying information; and

`(C) consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list. <end quote>

"A" & "B" has been required for decades. "C" is the new requirement.

Perhaps you are banking at the wrong bank...

Pro-choice is not he same as pro abortion, People that are Pro-choice believe that people should have to right to choose what to do with their reproductivity, and that abortion should be used as a last resort, never to be used on a first choice basis.
The option should be there.

Disclaimer: This is just my point of view, and I am entitled to it.

"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are two names for the same thing. It's called murder of the defenseless. Pro-choice is simply trying to give it a more acceptable name, sort of like the "final solution" instead of mass murder of those we do not like.

Waht is the source of your 20,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the coalition forces? That seems to be totally out there in fantsyland. If we are talking about mass murder, there was one British human rights workder, sorry I do not remember her name who commented that the hunt for "weapons of mass destruction" was simply quibbling. Her statement was that. "Saddam was the weapon of mass destriction, and the main target was the people of his own country." The world is a far better place without him, and he would still be in power if we had not gone in.

But then, I do know people that are in the country now, and they regard the general media reports as extraodinarily biased.