Just where does the Buck Stop with Dubya???

[JoseCuervo]

It is hard to take ol' Dubya serious on holding corporate titans responsbile for financial statements....
C'mon Sec. Chao, is Dubya vouching for the numbers he signs for, or are you gonna follow the model of Duyba's pals at Enron???

"First of all, any time a chief executive officer of a publicly held company signs a financial statement, he is personally vouching — he's personally saying the numbers are correct and accurate." -President Bush, 3/8/02

In testimony before the House Means and Ways Committee this week, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao defended President Bush by making it clear that he isn't responsible for the report put out by his Council of Economic Advisers:


Chao: The President has been asked about this and the President has said that that is a CEA report. And it is our hope, of course, that job creation will occur at a faster rate than what it has been.

Rep. Charlie Rangel: What is the President's position on this specific report projection? Is he going to sign this report and send it to the Congress?

Chao: He doesn't sign this report. The Council of Economic Advisors'signs that report.

I guess personal responsibility and integrity are not hallmarks of this Administration.... and appearntly his signature doesn't mean much....

 

[A-con]

Where does the buck stop with you, Elkgunner ?
Do you really intend on voteing for Kerry ?
Do you think Kerry would really make a better president ? Because there are only two people in the running, Bush & Kerry, and with all the Bush bashing you've been doing, I must assume you would rather have your taxs raised, firearm & hunting rights reduced, and live in a country that kow-tows to the U.N. and pisses itself each time someone like Osama rattels his saber.
So, yes are no, do you support Kerry for President ?

 

[BuzzH]

A-con,

I'd really consider researching the "hunting rights reduced" business.

Bush is on a total and complete tear to eliminate and destroy lots of big-game habitat. He's giving it to his oil buddies at an alarming rate.

I ask how any hunter in his right mind could vote for that guy...

Your hunting rights wont be worth a bucket of piss with nothing or nowhere to hunt, just something to ponder...

 

[A-con]

How about you, Buzz, you voteing for Kerry ?

 

[pawclaws]

You guys are Hillarylarious!! The kind of crap that the DNC is pulling is almost worthy of Elkgunner's nonsense.

 

[JoseCuervo]

A-Con,

You can do better than that. Why shoot the messenger and ignore the message?

Does it bother you that a Cabinet Secretary would tell a sitting member of Congress that the President does not responsible for the numbers he sends on? Aren't these the numbers that are supposed to be the basis for all the budget work and the forecasts?

And please, can you follow up on the "reduced hunting rights"? I care about that issue, and if you have some insight on Kerry and reduced hunting rights, I think you would share them with the fellow members of HuntTalk. Who most of us are hunters, for the most part.

Right now, I am still "Undecided", as I see there are still 5 major candidates.

 

[pawclaws]

No Elkgunner those are not the numbers used in budget forecasts. The budget numbers come through the PBIS and MRIS and are submitted in increments of one, two, three, four, and five year cycles based on the five year planning documents of the various agencies. These figures go into the President's office for inclusion or consideration for inclusion in the budget which he/she presents to the congress. What bothers me more, are the comments made by congressmen who understand this and wish to play politics or worse; congressmen wh don't know this. The President asks for reports and the information is provided to him/her. Iwouldfind it highly unusual for someone who asked for a report to also sign it. Wouldn't you??

 

[A-con]

Five major candidates ?
Please don't smoke that stuff before you post !
Does anybody, ANYBODY ! think anyone else has a chance to become president ?
your choices
#1 Bush
#2 Kerry
#3 wast your vote

Kerry is supported by enviromental & animal rights groups that oppose any hunting, and have had sucsess baning lion hunting, useing dogs for bear hunting, are making inroads on banning dove hunting in some states.
Who do you think he will listen to, if elected, them or you ?
Can I document it right now, no, And if you don't belive it, feel free to think I'm full of chit.
The point is, there is NO dream candidate, with any chance of winning.
I got a lot of problems with Bush, but he's way better than Kerry.
Bush or Kerry, take your pick.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Anaconda,

How come you keep skipping the point of this thread, with Dubya's lack of ownership for his numbers?

But, I'll address your other questions, no problem.

I would actually like to have seen the Democratic primary last a bit longer, and keep the debates up, as I think a vigorous campaign is very enlightening. I would also have loved to see McCain or another prominent Republican challenge Bush, to at least make him address the issues. Maybe even a further Right Winger... I just think it is for a healthier democracy.

As for voting, I don't know why I would want to make up my mind, yet. All the campaigning between now and November is for the Undecideds. You have already locked in on Bush, so you can now be taken for granted. It is me, and those like me, who Bush will have to fight for.

Also, without knowing who Kerry picks for a VP, it is too early to commit. He might pick somebody good or somebody bad.

And given that I live in Idaho, where Dubya will carry it by 20 points, I have three choices, vote for Bush, or if upset with Bush, vote for Kerry (or Sharpton/Kocinich), or if upset with Bush and Kerry, vote for Nader.

In any case, the electoral votes still go to Bush.

(Disclaimer Note to Anaconda: The following is a bit of a rant, please don't take it as a personal attack, but please read it in the constructive manner it was intended.)

But A-Con, let's talk about the Hunting Rights. As far as I know, no Democrat has ever passed or signed a law to restrict hunting. I believe all the bans you listed (or at least the ones I am aware of) were the results of Citizen's Initiatives. They were truly the "Will of the People".

I think it is unfair to blame Democrats for the failings of Hunters. If the Hunters wanted to keep those rights, they could have done as the hunters in Idaho did, and band together, and defeat the Initiatives.

I support and am active in many of the most powerful environmental groups in Idaho. I spend my summer vacation with the man the Idaho Statesman called "The Most Effective Environmentalist in Idaho". I regularly hang out with the founders of the precursor group to Idaho Rivers United (Breach 'em...) I support the Idaho Conservation League. And one more, even more effective Environmental group that I won't name. But, with every one of these groups, they know my E-mail address (ElkGunenr@....) they know I hunt, and they see dead animals on my walls.

I make no apologies for hunting and fishing, nor do they oppose. I have taught their children how to cast a fly to a Cutthroat in crystal clear free flowing river.

It is hunter's responsibilities to show that we are normal, clean smelling, full teeth, educated, intelligent people.

Look at the Rosie thread, all the worst stereotypes and bigoted, racist behaviour was exhibited by "hunters". Talk about a group nobody would want to be associated with.

If you really care about protecting hunting rights, places to hunt, and similar, get involved with the organizations that promote conservation. At a minimum, Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation, but even better, are the local ones that you can have more influence. Go to the fundraisers. Drink their White Wine, eat their Brie. You might even develop a taste for it.

But don't just sit on your butt, and bitch about alleged acts by non-hunters, and promise to vote for the guy who wants to drill the Front Range in Montana, drill ANWAR, build roads to cut down trees, refuses to help save wild Salmon.

What good is a hunting license, if there are no critters?

 

[A-con]

[No message]

 

[A-con]

Thats what I was looking for.
I am a member of the RMEF, and I do support the enviroment. I also, like you, have a lot of problems with Bush. I would have loved to see the Democartic primary go to the end, both because it would have produced a better candidate, and he would have wasted a lot more of his campain funds winning the nomanation.
But in the end ( next November ) one of these two men WILL be the president for the next four years, nobody else has a chance. As far as hunting rights, just because he dosn't sign a law, dosn't mean he can't foward causes that will errode are ability to hunt.
Bill Clinton went duck hunting in Arkansas during his campain, and tried to kiss up to hunters, then he used excutive orders to turn wild huntable lands into non-hunting "monuments", passed laws restricting ownership of so called "assualt wepons" many of which were commanly used by hunters. The animal rights groups made major headway during his trems because he was a "friendly" president to their causes.
Kerry is a north eastern liberal, no matter what he says, western states, hunting and anybody who works for a living will suffer if he becomes president.
As far as this post, and a lot of others, I don't respond to "cut & paste" Bush bashing. The stuff you are cutting was written by reporters who have a bigger interest in selling their articals than telling the accurate truth. Is it true ? I don't know, maby, but I do know you can't trust the stuff you see written in news papers, magazines
and on the internet. 90% bullshit, mixed with enought truth to help it sell.
The campaining between now & November is just a chance for both candidates to lie to us. Bush is a proven commadity, and so is Kerry. His senate record speaks volumes about what kind of president he will be. He flip flops on every issue, depending on what group he is speaking to and who gives him the most money. Belive me, if haliburton wrote him as big a check as they write Bush, Kerry would want to drill in Alaska. He lies about his votes, his position on issues and about Bush every chance he gets. He has never seen a tax increase he didn't like, and if you don't trust the government, one way to keep it in check is to restrict the amount of your money you give it.
This campain is cut & dry, Bush isn't great, but Kerry makes him look great.
Do you really think there is a third choice ?
Many democrates thought Nader was a third choice and that helped Bush win. Many republicans thought Peroit was a third choice, and Clinton got elected.
I wish somebody else would have written this, then I could have just cut & pasted it.
If you want to be taken seirously, cut & past some dirt on Kerry, or tell me why Nader is a good choice, otherwise your just parroting the same old tired dribbel that the DNC has been spewing for four years.

 

[Washington Hunter]

As much as I hate to vote for Bush, it looks like doing that is going to be my only choice. It's really not fair...two guys in the running, and neither one is worthy of running this country.

 

[BuzzH]

A-con,

I wont be voting for kerry or bush, more than likely...

Also, on Clintons monuments, could you name some of those areas that did allow hunting, but dont now because of the monument designation?

 

[pawclaws]

Boys you disappoint me. The President of The United States is the title! Not president of Cabela's, or Big John's Duck Pond. The job is to perform the functions of Chief Executive of the nation and Commander In Chief, not Park Ranger Willie or Tree Hugger Annie. Think about how across this nation how many of our "qualified citizens" are sitting around the water cooler or open sewer excavation saying the same kinds of things you guys are which boils down to this; "He ain't for my pet project, hobby, or personal pocket book so I ain't voting for him; worse "I ain't voting at all!"! Then we wonder why we end up with a less than desireable selection of candidates. SHAME ON YOU!

 

[1_pointer]

Paws- Is voting based on a person personal interest part of the double edged sword that with the freedom of voting for those in charge? I think the founders of this country recognized the problem you state and is why we are a representative republic and not a true democracy, though I'm not too sure it works as intended.

 

[pawclaws]

Unfortunately 1-pointer if apathy or self interest has become the norm then it will be truly, equally represented and can not be overcome by statistical norming, attempted through the electoral college, since it is indeed the normative value. It can only be overcome by changed attitudes. A Democratic approach would merely shift the electors to the most dense population centers; probably California, New York, DC, and maybe Florida. (Just Guessing here on the major population centers.) Excellent observation though; you are thinking.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

EG - in your quote of President Bush, the operative word is "sign." As Sec. Chau pointed out, the President is not signing this report, therefore he is not "personally vouching - - saying the numbers are correct and accurate."

 

[Michaelr]

Hey gunner being that you haven't made up your mind, how about pasting some dirt about Kerry??

This isn't a bash at you either, you just seem to be spouting about Bush for the sake of spouting.
Same thing with your other pet topics.

I used to spend quite alot of time in this forum but it has become something other than a place to have a decent debate.
I think it would be a shame if this forum goes to crap because of a few people.
Please think about it.
once again no offence intended.

 

[BuzzH]

Paws, I kind of agree with to a certain extent, people should demand more and better choices.

But, I've given up on the vote for the lesser of the evils, thats a crap way to cast a ballot, and pretty irresponsible.

I do believe not voting is just about as bad. Thats why I've chosen to write in a candidate the last 4 times. I cant with a clear conscience vote for someone that I dont believe will represent me or the country in a way I see fit.

More importantly to me, is voting for proper representatives, and I've cast ballots for both parties.

I also disagree with your assessment of a president not being concerned with the natural environment in the country. Not only as a sportsman but also as a professional in Natural Resource Management, I think the president should be concerned with whats going on with our lands and resources. Our environment and its management is a very important issue, and any president that doesnt think so, shouldnt be in that position. I think its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that the management of our resources is important, and apparently they think so as well, as the presidents seem anxious to appoint the heads of the various land management departments.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
EG - in your quote of President Bush, the operative word is "sign." As Sec. Chau pointed out, the President is not signing this report, therefore he is not "personally vouching - - saying the numbers are correct and accurate."

Cali,

A picture is worth a thousand words..... The image in the orignal post is of Dubya's signature ON the report. He does sign it.