portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war

QUAGMIRE OF HISTORIC DIMENSIONS.

Nathan Guisinger, a 33-year-old computer programmer, was speaking out about Iraq.

"This administration has obviously put us into a quagmire of historic dimensions," he said, adding that the Iraq war was waged on "the questionable veracity of American intelligence."
War, taxes, education _ Bush appearance brings out protesters

By DEEPTI HAJELA
Associated Press Writer

June 23, 2003, 8:23 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- Inside the hotel on Monday, President Bush extolled his record on a number of topics _ the war in Iraq, tax cuts, education policy.

Outside, protesters lined the streets to demonstrate against his administration on those issues and more.

Bush came to New York as part of a nationwide effort to raise funds for this re-election campaign. And raise them he did, putting a record $4 million in the coffers from the city event at the Sheraton New York. About 1,000 people stood in the hotel ballroom to hear him speak, cheering, "Four more years!"

Bush also brought out those against his policies in droves. Protest pens were set up on the blocks leading away from hotel, filled with people carrying signs like "Bush lies, People die" and "Bush leaves no millionaire behind."

The topics of protest ranged from the war in Iraq to abortion rights to education issues. The anti-war ANSWER coalition offered pedestrians the chance to sign sheets calling for Bush's impeachment on charges he committed war crimes and crimes of deception.

Nathan Guisinger, a 33-year-old computer programmer, was speaking out about Iraq.

"This administration has obviously put us into a quagmire of historic dimensions," he said, adding that the Iraq war was waged on "the questionable veracity of American intelligence."

Maryann Natoli was demonstrating for family planning rights, saying of Bush, "His policies worldwide are against women. We're cutting off funds for contraception and abortion."
___


Associated Press writer Verena Dobnik contributed to this report.

homepage: homepage: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--bush-protests0623jun23,0,3332200.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Keep it up 24.Jun.2003 09:24

Firetruck

Keep the pressure up. We have to push him off.

hypocritical 24.Jun.2003 10:20

Yup

Maryann Natoli was demonstrating for family planning rights, saying of Bush, "His policies worldwide are against women. We're cutting off funds for contraception and abortion."

And then the Republicans whine about illegal immigrants and political refugees swamping our country. Seems pretty hypocritical.

What's wrong... 24.Jun.2003 10:49

Snaggle snaggle97233@hotmail.com

...with paying for your own contraceptives and abortions? Why should taxpayers pay for that stuff? I choose to smoke cigarettes, for example. Why should taxpayers pay for my cigarettes? If my girlfriend wants an abortion, I will pay for that; why should taxpayers pay for that? If I need rubbers, I pay for them myself.

What's the problem?

I'm more than a little confused here.

And please don't call me names. I'm tired of that.

If anyone can answer this question honestly without calling me names, I will treat them to Starbucks.

Snaggle... 24.Jun.2003 11:29

Reader

So your point is that if people can't afford birth control or abortions, like the homeless or the young, they just shouldn't get them.

Many do not agree with that position.

Gentle reader... 24.Jun.2003 12:37

Snaggle Snaggle97233@hotmail.com

If I was a young female and became pregnant and wanted an abortion, I would expect my family to pay for the abortion, not the government (i.e., you and me). If I was homeless electively, I wouldn't have my hand out. If I was homeless nonelectively, I would expect family and friends to help me out. Also, I imagine that, as a homeless male, I'd have little use for contraceptives because no woman would have sex with me anyway!

What I don't understand about what the other writer said, though, was the references to Bush taking power away from women, etc. I honestly don't understand that. Women have all the power. They always have. They always will. And there's nothing wrong with that. Peace, sister.

How did we get off into this? This was supposed to be something about a "quagmire" or something. More Bush-bashing no doubt. Juvenile rebeling against authority. Unconscious perception of the president et al as some sort of "parent" to rebel against...

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? It makes us feel better inside. Seriously. I swear.

So, um....exit, stage left....

Snaggle 24.Jun.2003 12:48

ranger

Part of the problem is that many teenagers are very hesitant to tell their parents out of fear and some parents will fight
them over contraceptives and abortion. Maybe, we should remove the stigma associated with unwanted pregnancies,
because the fact remains, some teens don't think of consequences and rather than lead the lives some of their parents did
who were forced to have the baby and reget it, why not make the decision a little easier and less painful. That's my thought.

Mis-understanding 24.Jun.2003 13:15

Yup

I think Snaggle misunderstood the statement. It wasnt about local or national abortion/birth control. It was about WORLDWIDE programs. Read it again.
">>Maryann Natoli was demonstrating for family planning rights, saying of Bush, "His policies worldwide are against women. We're cutting off funds for contraception and abortion." <<
The usa has withdrawn helping to fund these programs because of the pro-life block pressure. Most pro-lifers are hard right-wingers. They also have a platform of closing the borders and kicking out all the illegals which will most certainly get worse with this Bush anti-woman policy of not funding international family planning programs. Snaggle-most of these women cant afford food or clean water let alone decent birth control.

Now I get it... 24.Jun.2003 14:50

Snaggle snaggle97233@hotmail.com

Thanks for setting me straight.

Oh, by the way, I owe "reader" a Starbucks...

Cigarettes 24.Jun.2003 15:07

Tom

I have no beef with Snaggle smoking cigarettes on his own time and in some place that doesn't pollute my air.

And of course, he is a MAN and he buys his own cigarettes.

But when he is being treated for pneumonia, heart disease and lung cancer-- then guess who pays the bills. Not Snaggle. Not even if he has health insurance, because smokers and non-smokers pay the same rates, and the non-smokers are subsidizing the smokers.

And of course, if by some chance-- possibly not of his own making-- he should find himself without health insurance, then of course the public will pay for his treatment. Unless he dies like the MAN he says he is.

Hold the beef... 24.Jun.2003 15:51

Snaggle snaggle97233@hotmail.com

Your way of thinking is pedestrian and ill-informed.

Yeah, smoking sucks. But people smoke. Think of this:

I will not live as long as a nonsmoker. I will not have those medical costs the elderly have (and which make up the majority of medical costs--keeping old people living for years). Also, I will never draw on the Social Security I have been paying into all these years. And I'm unmarried and have no dependents. And the cigarette taxes I pay? Wow. You would go ballistic and would have to "resist" if you were so heavily taxed for something you do that is legal and done by one-fifth of the population. Can you imagine the uprising if they taxed pathouli oil? Us smokers, well, we've been taught to feel guilty, and we do feel guilty because, well, smoking is a dumb jones. But people smoke, and they have smoked since for a long, long time. In a way, you should be thanking me!

You know what I've noticed? Nonsmokers seem to become more sensitive to cigarette smoke the less they encounter it.

And if you're speaking from a "public health" standpoint, why not tax venereal disease, AIDS, obesity, drunkenness, etc.?

Your argument, though heard often, does not hold water. If you don't believe me, do a little research. That's what I did. I'm not just parroting what I hear because it "sounds right" and "makes sense."

Have a good day. I have to get my iced espresso now.

assuming you don't quit... 24.Jun.2003 16:10

concerned

"I will not have those medical costs the elderly have"

Yes you will; you'll just have them earlier and they are likely to be more severe (lung cancer is pretty costly, and can be treated for a long time).

"Also, I will never draw on the Social Security I have been paying into all these years"

Untrue, although you are not likely to live as long as a non-smoker you are still likely to live past retirement.

So what are you saying? 25.Jun.2003 02:00

snaggle snaggle97233@hotmail.com

What do you want to do to me, then?