For Dems only.

[kapkomet]

OH COME ON NANCY NOW THAT'S B.S.

Ok, wow. So much for ending corruption and all that crap. They really are just as bad as the Republicans. Seriously, it doesn't matter which party gets elected, all they do is protect their own interests. OUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS!

[FlaSoxxJim]

OH COME ON NANCY NOW THAT'S B.S.

Add me to the list of those disappointed by this decision. Hard to claim any moral high ground on the congressional corruption issue if you pull cr@p like this, Nancy.

[Texsox]

Add me to the list of those disappointed by this decision. Hard to claim any moral high ground on the congressional corruption issue if you pull cr@p like this, Nancy.

 

Mega Dittos Jim

[Texsox]

The Gore thread has highlighted something for me, why doesn't the GOP have a position regarding the environment? The only thing I've seen is attacking any Dem lead discussions and policy initiatives, but no proposals of their own besides delaying milestones for energy efficiencies and pollution standards. I assume theirs is a "if it hurts business, we can't afford it economically" position that is tough to articulate and more importantly, harder to defend.

 

What concerns me then, is by attacking Dems for environmental stewardship, they are hurting us all by allowing a more polluted environment. Their followers seemingly would prefer to reject any and all Dem initiated environmental proposals and stay in the pockets of big oil.

 

I wonder what Dems can do to "de-politicize" the issue for the greater good. To bring conservatives into the fold so we all can enjoy cleaner air and safer water. If we can't get together over something as basic as air and water, we're really in trouble.

[Balta1701]

The Gore thread has highlighted something for me, why doesn't the GOP have a position regarding the environment? The only thing I've seen is attacking any Dem lead discussions and policy initiatives, but no proposals of their own besides delaying milestones for energy efficiencies and pollution standards. I assume theirs is a "if it hurts business, we can't afford it economically" position that is tough to articulate and more importantly, harder to defend.

To my eyes, the answer is fairly simple: $$$$$$$$$. It costs businesses money to make changes to help the environment. It is a lot cheaper to dump mercury in a pond than it is to actually try to clean it up, and it's a lot cheaper to fund the American Enterprise Institute's Milliion-dollar-campaign saying global warming doesn't exist than it is to spend a few hundred million or a few billion developing an alternate source of energy.

 

It affects the Dems less, but it still does hit them some, when they have people who are particularly in bed with certain business groups. But the reality is...the Republicans get an enormous amount of money from companies who would be hurt by additional environmental regulations, so when the Republicans get in power, they do so because of the support of those industries, and they take the steps those industries would like.

I wonder what Dems can do to "de-politicize" the issue for the greater good. To bring conservatives into the fold so we all can enjoy cleaner air and safer water. If we can't get together over something as basic as air and water, we're really in trouble.

Well, that's a complicated question. If we're talking about what can we do to bring the American Enterprise Institute towards an environmental perspective, the answer is probably nothing; their existence in these fields is based on the idea of denying everything. Just say that Global warming is caused by the sun, run ads saying CO2 is good for you, etc. With the people who simply deny that humans can do anything to the environment that will harm humans, or that the environment is always unimportant relative to profits...there probably isn't anything.

 

The hope I see though comes from the religious side. You're not going to get all of them (I believe Falwell just called Global Climate change "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus"), but I think that there is going to be a sizeable group who may at some point become receptive to the message that humanity does have some responsibility to this earth, or even more so, that changes to the earth that cause suffering by billions of people might be something that should be dealt with.

 

The business community may come around slowly...mainly as businesses start to realize that there is money available in protecting the Earth in ways...but not every company is going to throw their hat in with that group. But there are ways that inroads can be made, and I think that the religious community might be the best chance.

[kapkomet]

The Gore thread has highlighted something for me, why doesn't the GOP have a position regarding the environment?

They do, if you take your head out of the Goracle's ass long enough to find it. And no, it's not simply $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Balta.

 

And before the next smart ass comment comes about "they just pollute and pollute and pollute", no, that's just simply not true. There isn't the Goracle (or someone like him) speaking for the GOP, so of course they won't get the same attention.

[Texsox]

They do, if you take your head out of the Goracle's ass long enough to find it. And no, it's not simply $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Balta.

 

And before the next smart ass comment comes about "they just pollute and pollute and pollute", no, that's just simply not true. There isn't the Goracle (or someone like him) speaking for the GOP, so of course they won't get the same attention.

 

Why do you come in here with that ass comment? I guess it is more of the intelligent, thought provoking comments from conservatives on the environment.

 

I've been asking for 100 posts in that other thread and so far no one has spoken up. So where should I look to find out?

 

And the other question is why conservatives do not speak up about the environment?

[Balta1701]

On a different topic.

Army Sgt. William "B.J." Beardsley, and his family moved to Indiana a few years ago when he enlisted. While there, it turned out that his wife needed significant hospitalization and surgery. He re-enlisted and went back to Iraq so that his family wouldn't lose health coverage.

 

He was killed the day after she left the hospital.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

On a different topic.

Army Sgt. William "B.J." Beardsley, and his family moved to Indiana a few years ago when he enlisted. While there, it turned out that his wife needed significant hospitalization and surgery. He re-enlisted and went back to Iraq so that his family wouldn't lose health coverage.

 

He was killed the day after she left the hospital.

 

Every person who dies in uniform has a story. I wish right now we were saying Mission Accomplished, You Are Heading Home.

[Rex Kickass]

Mitt Romney's latest supporter. Ann Coulter

 

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘f*****,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

[kapkomet]

Mitt Romney's latest supporter. Ann Coulter

And for that reason alone, I think I now hate Mitt Romney (in reality, I didn't like him already).

[Balta1701]

Mitt Romney's latest supporter. Ann Coulter

I think this clearly shows how vulgar these liberal blogs have become and why they should be excluded from all relevant discourse.

[Texsox]

I think this clearly shows how vulgar these liberal blogs have become and why they should be excluded from all relevant discourse.

 

I'm not one to use that language, and believe it discounts someone's opinion greatly,

[Balta1701]

I'm not one to use that language, and believe it discounts someone's opinion greatly,

I would agree.

 

However, here is the question to ask yourself; what does a Conservative political figure like Ann Coulter have to say or do that would actually motivate some major media outlet to remove them from their channel?

 

You've got O'Reilly saying terrorists should hit San Fransisco, you've got Glenn Beck who asks a Congressman to prove he's not working with our enemies because he's a Muslim who gets his own show on Headline News and becomes a Good Morning America Contributor, you've got Ann Coulter who threatens the NY Times and who has called Al Gore a "total f**" in the past, and all of them keep getting more and more time on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

 

And then, on days like today, I have to deal with posts complaining about the appearance of naughty language on liberal blogs, while no one seems to bat an eyebrow when one of the biggest conservative blogs (run by a tenured professor) says we've been at war with Iran since 1979 and should begin a campaign of assassinations of Iranian scientists, or says a word when Ann Coulter stays on TV, and so on and so on and so on.

 

Sorry, just venting a lil', been a long week, and I've got another f***ing illness.

 

Edit: and then to top it off, I read this kind of idiocy at the end of the day. ARGH!

Edited March 3, 2007 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

They do, if you take your head out of the Goracle's ass long enough to find it. And no, it's not simply $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Balta.

 

And before the next smart ass comment comes about "they just pollute and pollute and pollute", no, that's just simply not true. There isn't the Goracle (or someone like him) speaking for the GOP, so of course they won't get the same attention.

I'll expound on this. I agree with Kap on this point, and its an important ideal - $$$$$ is not the only major political reason behind the resistance. The other big one is the ideal of individual freedoms, versus group freedoms. The GOP have historically been crusaders for individual freedom, individuals including both businesses and citizens. So anything that comes along which looks like the beginning of a forced mandate that will cost people money and/or some sense of personal freedom, they'll flinch at (there is of course the major exception here - the part of the GOP highly motivated by religious crusading will be perfectly fine with restrictions on freedoms if they meet their morality).

 

Virtually all of the scientific community, along with a growing majority of lamens in this country, have accepted the reality that we as humans are doing massive damage to the environment that will soon come back to bite us in the a**. And so we have accepted that we all have to work as a group to combat the problem - it cannot effectively be left to a few well-minded individuals anymore. Its too late for that. But that doesn't mean that the desires of conservatives for government to stay out of their business suddenly dies. Its still there, and some people will fight to protect it even in the face of every piece of logic and science you can throw at them.

 

I'm hoping and expecting that resistance to wane as time goes on, but occasionally spike up in anger. That's what we're seeing here. Hopefully logic will prevail sooner rather than later.

[Balta1701]

Mitt Romney's latest supporter. Ann Coulter

Link.

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

 

At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.

Glad we cleared that up.

[EvilMonkey]

Link.

Glad we cleared that up.

So, botched jokes about military intelligence = ok

Botched jokes about a candidate being gay = bad

 

Got it.

 

And before you get yourself all worked up, I think both are bad, just trying to figure out how you can excuse one, but not the other.

[Balta1701]

So, botched jokes about military intelligence = ok

Botched jokes about a candidate being gay = bad

 

Got it.

 

And before you get yourself all worked up, I think both are bad, just trying to figure out how you can excuse one, but not the other.

You're calling Coulter's remark a "botched" joke? Seriously?

[EvilMonkey]

You're calling Coulter's remark a "botched" joke? Seriously?

Well, SHE called it a joke, sorta like Kerry called his comment a joke. Gonna believe one and not the other? Seriously?

[Balta1701]

Well, SHE called it a joke, sorta like Kerry called his comment a joke. Gonna believe one and not the other? Seriously?

I'm not saying it wasn't a joke, I'm saying it wasn't botched. It wasn't botched when she called Edwards a f*g, it wasn't botched when she called Gore a "total f*g", it wasn't botched last year at this exact same event when she called Arabs "ragheads" and threatened violence against them or saying that she "had a shot at Bill Clinton", and so on and so on and so on.

 

It's not a botched joke here. This is exactly what she does. Over and over and over and over. And her completely-non-apology apology fits exactly with that formula. Her schtick is to say the most offensive thing humanly possible, whether it's a joke or not, it is 100% deliberate.

 

And every time she does something like this, the mainstream folks condemn her for a day, then give here 2x as much time on TV, give her another cover on Time Magazine. And then the Republicans invite her repeatedly to conferences just like this one, they show up knowing full well what kind of person she is, and then they come out and praise her.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm not saying it wasn't a joke, I'm saying it wasn't botched. It wasn't botched when she called Edwards a f*g, it wasn't botched when she called Gore a "total f*g", it wasn't botched last year at this exact same event when she called Arabs "ragheads" and threatened violence against them or saying that she "had a shot at Bill Clinton", and so on and so on and so on.

 

It's not a botched joke here. This is exactly what she does. Over and over and over and over. And her completely-non-apology apology fits exactly with that formula. Her schtick is to say the most offensive thing humanly possible, whether it's a joke or not, it is 100% deliberate.

 

And every time she does something like this, the mainstream folks condemn her for a day, then give here 2x as much time on TV, give her another cover on Time Magazine. And then the Republicans invite her repeatedly to conferences just like this one, they show up knowing full well what kind of person she is, and then they come out and praise her.

The repubs show up to CPAC because it is thrown by a major block of voters. The Dems have thier groups they go to as well that they may not really want to go to. And I don't really think Kerry's joke was 'botched'. I think it became 'botched' when he realized that he just flushed whatever was left of his political life down the toilet, and he was trying damage control. But to quote another soxtalk poster,"It's always different..." You should have gone into PR/damage control. You are good at deflecting the discussion, changing the point and all that other stuff a good PR person needs to do.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Rex Kickass]

Another CPAC highlight. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030201619.html

 

I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly.

[Balta1701]

And I don't really think Kerry's joke was 'botched'. I think it became 'botched' when he realized that he just flushed whatever was left of his political life down the toilet, and he was trying damage control.

The transcript of his prepared remarks that he gave out to media folks before that speech and the words he actually said were totally different. The prepared version was much less offensive. He paused in the middle of the line and then flubbed it. It wasn't nearly as obvious as the classic "Fool me once", but it was clearly botched.

[EvilMonkey]

The prepared version was much less offensive.

Less offensive is still offensive.

[Balta1701]

Well, I will admit, this is vastly more amusing and less annoying than the stupid attempted Clinton/Obama dust-up a week ago. E&P.

Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "f*&*(t," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."

 

Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate married to a woman, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

 

Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."

 

A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists."

 

Bonior was elected to Congress half a dozen times in Michigan, and served in Vietnam.