are you not aware the politicians and people at the top abide by different laws then we do?
I know that this is a POTENTIAL, i do not know that it is being done byu 100% of politicians nor 100% of the time. I cannot ASSUME this to fit my
needs/adgenda and still hope to be objective.
In reality the "top people" are required to abide by the same laws we common folk do. I blame the people for not exercising their will over the
politicians to reign in this type of behaivior by removing from office, by special refferendum before the election if nessisary (Ousting of California
Govenor) any politician they feel is not doing the business of the people and/or recieving special treatment, or acting innapropriatly. This can be
done any time or place in America, thru legitimate means, if the people actually cared to do so.
Now you are ALLEDGING the same type of collusion/manipulation in your
"New Lawsuits Aim at Bush EPA Action Enabling Millions of Fish Kills" Idea.
You are in essence trying to link the actions of one government agency DIRECTLY to influance/manipulation and specifically CRIMINAL actions commited
by President Bush.
For this debate i will not question the bias of the source you cited. Its accuracy wil be ASSUMED.
How can you say that a whole wing of government, with hundreds of employees from both parties, somehow all agreed with a Bush strategy to make this
action reality? With watchdog groups watching their moves, Bush directly gave orders for this to occur? It appears that this is the 3rd phase of a
court challenge of epa authority vs Interpretations of the clean water act more than a plot by BUSH+the EPA.
Again, I'll not dispute that some hidden influence could exist,
As i dont see from your post a direct connection, I must ask in order to be an informed voter, wheres the legitimacy here? This seems to be more of
an allegation of OPINION more so than fact.
A second consideration of examining this is
If there is actual "evidence" of your allegations, then why has no actions been taken against Bush, but only the agency responsible for actually
doing the actions in question. (which are still under legal challenge and COULD be upheld.)
Third, as an American, I believe in the fundamental legal principal of "innocent until proven guilty" and apply this not only to legal matters but
in judments of character as well. This would be "the benifit of the doubght" In order to again not let any bias or preconcieved notions interfere
in this assment. What prion history is there to indicate that either Bush or the EPA would/have engauged in this before?
The 3 things examined would lead me to logically, reasonably conclude that this is opinion and not fact. Therefore to "hate Bush" for this seems
Do not confuse being a member of a party with not being objective.
This would only be lying to yourself about the other person.
As im NOT naive, i do understand for the 3rd timek, that corruption in politics is possible, but it would be naive to take allegations with little
substance, as FACTS and act accordingly. COULD I vote based upon this allegation? yes, but how truely informed would that be based on available
information about this.
You mention Moral justice, hmm WHO's moral compass are we talking about here? Morality is a slippery thing to define.