AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > August > 05 > Entry
With gas prices so high, is Bush’s new energy policy a good idea?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I daresay that if gas prices weren’t skyrocketing past an average of $2.23 per gallon — and climbing — environmental and consumer groups would again have succeeded in stalling the landmark energy reform now being signed into law. America consumes nearly three times more oil than we produce, and we have needed to resolve our energy conundrum for a long time. But for years, groups understandably concerned about the environmental impact of more oil drilling or nuclear power have blocked those efforts.
I’m grateful that lawmakers realized that this problem isn’t going away, that the longer we delay the more dire a problem we’ll pass on to our children, and that it’s possible to both bolster our economic national security and be environmentally conscious. Predictably, however, opponents are outraged about the bipartisan bill, claiming that its $14.5 billion in tax breaks further enriches wealthy oil and gas companies, while providing no short-term fix for gas prices.
That outrage ignores the hard reality: we can’t just wish away our energy problem, and a sea change requires huge private-sector incentives. We need long-term increases in production of all types of energy, long-term changes in consumer consumption behavior, and long-term adjustments in the types of energy we use.
To get there, the new energy reform gives incentives for everything from $2.6 billion to convince those evil oil companies to drill for more U.S. oil and build new refineries (we’ve built none in three decades), to $2.7 billion to bolster clean energy sources such as wind farms, to $3.1 billion to help utilities modernize our power grid. It even encourages building much-needed, safer, nuclear power plants. As President Bush recently noted, “America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the same period.” No wonder we’ve become overly dependent on foreign oil.
While gas prices won’t fall tomorrow, reform will make gas prices less relevant. It is the energy equivalent of diversifying America’s long-term investment portfolio; away from over-reliance on foreign oil and into the common use of all types of energy. For the sake of the next generation, the time for short-term fixes is long past.
Rebuttal
The new energy bill is as unproductive and useless as a Bush family presidential term.
This bill just endorses another quick-fix while padding the pockets of Bush and Cheney buddies with over $14 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, most of which are funneled to the energy industry. Five-hundred million in grants alone will go toward “ultra-deepwater” projects in the Gulf of Mexico. I’d pray for more shark attacks, but I fear the real ones are above sea level.
Brookings Institution energy expert Gregg Easterbrook doesn’t think the bill is totally worthless but bemoans the utter disregard of global warming and greenhouse issues as a “huge disappointment”. Four presidential terms after the discussion started, there remains no legislation addressing the growing menace of fuel emissions and consumption. Our love affair with mega-cars endangers our lives right now, says Easterbrook. The large vehicles are less safe than your average car and they churn through fuel like a space shuttle launch.
Accommodating our outrageous appetites for large SUVs and an open road is something Bush sheepishly likes to refer to as “the American dream”. But would our quality of life really be undone by a little less leg room? If Congress legislated with vision, they’d understand what the experts already know: the single most effective means to conserve fuel is to replace gas guzzlers with fuel efficient cars.
Earth Policy Institute’s, Lester Brown is perplexed by the bill’s absence of updated fuel efficiency standards, criterion that have been unchanged for years despite the advances in technology. “It’s unfortunate because that is the most important thing we can do to decrease oil dependence,” says Brown, who thinks automobile manufacturers likely opposed the upgrade because their higher profit margins depend on fuel-“inefficient” cars.
If the automotive industry built more fuel-efficient cars, we could slow down environmental damage and decrease our reliance on foreign energy sources. The answer isn’t digging up our native land or invading foreign countries to keep the oil flowing but rehabilitating our addiction to luxury and environmental apathy.
You don’t break the habit of a drug abuser by giving him more drugs; you change his behavior. And you certainly don’t pay off the pusher.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this
When are you folks on the Left gonna finally get those “fuel efficient” automobiles on the road? You’ve been talking about them for years - what’s the hold-up?
Either that or the “Alternative Energy Sources” that you’ve apparently been working on for decades now. Can you give us an estimated time of when these energy sources are going to be on the market?
And to dovetail with some of last week’s discussions, why aren’t you women out there taking the lead on solving our energy problems?
Our environment is at stake - it’s time for you folks to do something about it!
By Augustine
August 8, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this
Jack, the only shame is that I can’t tell you in person. Beleive me I would relish the opportunity to do so.
By Brian Curtis
August 8, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this
The energy lobbyists are trying hard to convince us that there are only two options: reliance on foreign oil, or subsidies for domestic oil.
It is, of course, a lie. The last thing we should be doing them is simply handing oil companies money to thank them for selling us oil—and overcharging us in the process. Oh, they talk a lot about “alternative energy”—specifically, how it’s nice in theory, but “until we have something practical….” Meanwhile, behind the scenes they’re doing all they can to stall and block any attempt to develop alternatives so they can maintain their deathgrip on Congress and our wallets.
It’s time America grew up and started acting a bit more responsibly. Insist on higher-mileage regulations for existing cars; promote the use of real hybrids (rather than just regular motors with an electrical add-on, which does nothing to improve fuel economy); subsidize renewable and nonpolluting energy development; and quit throwing money at the oil companies whenever they demand it. Who’s in charge here, anyway?
Oh, that’s right: George “Oil Man” Bush. Never mind.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this
Brian,
I remember the good times. Back when Clinton/Gore ran things and we weren’t using oil. One of the first things that George “Oil Man” Bush did when he took office was to ban all the “Alternative Energy Sources” that Clinton/Gore had given us.
That’s how those evil Republicans are!
By Whiley
August 8, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this
“When are you folks on the Left gonna finally get those “fuel efficientâ€? automobiles on the road? You’ve been talking about them for years - what’s the hold-up?”
They are already available now (hybrids), they are just too darn expensive for the average working person.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this
They are already available now (hybrids), they are just too darn expensive for the average working person.
The Leftists created the hybrids? And so now you are price-gouging the American public?
By alphonse
August 8, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
1700+ pages, how many swine do you think are contained?
By Chilao
August 8, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
wow, all this time I thought the Clinton years were over-ridden by Newt and the Gang, the Republican-controlled House. Thanks, Taboga, for re-writing my perception of that era. Now I know Clinton’s (et al) ideas actually passed the House. Must be why we have universal health coverage now, for example.
We have had over 30 years since the 1973 oil embargo, yet we have no true alternatives, are still dependent on Arab oil, still support fully anything Israel does, and are such a self-centered American culture, expect to be ENTITLED to cheap fuel for our gas-guzzling SUVs. After all, we can always go kill some more Arabs.
Yeah, I use petrol, all 35+ mpg on my 4 cyl/5-speed.
And here last week I thought would be Kommunistas vs. Fascists, turned into man vs. woman instead..LOL
well, just here to give my opini-hole, like we all have one, right?
By taboga
August 8, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
We have had over 30 years since the 1973 oil embargo, yet we have no true alternatives, are still dependent on Arab oil…
And during all that time, the Leftists have had full control of all the major universities in the country. All the “brains” and resources available to them and they still haven’t come up with the “alternative energy sources”. What are they waiting on?
By Whiley
August 8, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
“The Leftists created the hybrids? And so now you are price-gouging the American public?”
Actually the Catholics are behind it all. hehe
By taboga
August 8, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Must be why we have universal health coverage now, for example.
What is that exactly?
By sct
August 8, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
According to the latest Newsweek poll 34% of Americans approve of Bush’s energy policy.
Most people see the Bush energy policy for what it is, a Big Oil welfare program, heck it could be just what Enron needs to get back on track.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
According to the latest Newsweek poll 34% of Americans approve of Bush’s energy policy.
According to my latest poll - 99.9% of Americans don’t know what the energy policy is.
By Peter
August 8, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
I find it comical that we are so concerned about the “price” of gas at the pumps here. Shaunti cites $2.23 with alarm, when the global prices are double that. (Most don’t realize that our government has been so adept at shielding us from long term consequences.)
By Whiley
August 8, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
So what IS it?
By Chilao
August 8, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
yeah, even a bunch of western Montana ranchers, formerly Pro-Bush, have pulled their support for Bush, since the ranchers seem to understand Bush’s energy policy. must be the .1 percent.
area west of Helena, MT, up Browning way.
and they aren’t even ‘liberals’
By taboga
August 8, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
yeah, even a bunch of western Montana ranchers, formerly Pro-Bush, have pulled their support for Bush, since the ranchers seem to understand Bush’s energy policy. must be the .1 percent.
area west of Helena, MT, up Browning way.
and they aren’t even ‘liberals’
How do a “bunch” of ranchers “up Browning way” actually “pull their support”…?
By Chilao
August 8, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
yeah, Europe seems to be okay with $5 plus a gallon. not sure what it is currently, certainly paid $4 and up years ago. Don’t remember seeing alot of very selfish SUV’s, however. Always like to see people whing about gas prices, as they pass me, doing 80 plus.
By Scalia
August 8, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
When will you people realize that it all boils down to money. If you are going to lose millions of dollars by making oil independent cars, why do it? That’s like your boss telling you that you will have to work every weekend, 20 hours a day, without overtime or extra pay. Would you do it? I doubt it.
The leftists do not control universities, that would be the sports department, or NCAA football. Look at the controversities at UGA because they wanted to make it more academic, instead of letting athletes who can run a ball but can’t read a complete sentence in, they were being held accountable. Or the theory of basketball classes offered to athletes.
Also, when it comes to science, if it inteferes with religion, it is not going to be taught. We are still having a debate, in 2005, about evolution being taught and intelligent design. People need to realize that you can still believe in God, and practice science.
By Sct
August 8, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
You know it must be bad for Bush when his approval rating in Georgia goes down to 52%.
Bush better start talking about the gay marriage amendment again if he wants his numbers to rebound here, after all there’s a govenor election coming up and Bush likes his Georgia puppets.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Look at the controversities at UGA because they wanted to make it more academic, instead of letting athletes who can run a ball but can’t read a complete sentence in, they were being held accountable. Or the theory of basketball classes offered to athletes.
I have an idea of no what you where trying to says.
By me
August 8, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Yet again, the leftists wants government to regulate our lives. â€?But would our quality of life really be undone by a little less leg room? If Congress legislated with vision…”. Of course this doesn’t take one major thing into account - Americans want leg room. Let Congress regulate the design of the American car and you will end up with another Edsel - a car no one wants. This is a free market economy, not fascist China. Let the people decide what they want. Only leftist pansies drive hybrids. I want my detriot muscle.
By James
August 8, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
I truely believe the real reason we do not have the proper access to the ‘Alternatives’ to gas guzzeling SUV & expensive energy is that Oil Wealthy men (W is one of them- and that is a FACT) have no incentive to bring these items to the market in quantities enough to make the price reasonable. VCRs in the early 80’s were $400-$600 each. Now Wal-Mart sells them for $19.95. Color TVs were over $1000 at first. Now you can get a 32” for $200. Technology only becomes reasonable when enough people buy it to mass produce it. Car companies & oil companies are only giving us dribbles to keep us thinking they want to be part of the solution, even though their real concern is to keep us buying those Yukons & Troopers. Solar Power is a wonderful alternative but far too expensive as not enough folks buy it. It is cheaper to put up a nuclear power plant. Screw the environment, we want it cheap NOW! Shaunti is right, we need to look way down the road and not for the instant fixes, even though misguided in her support for this bill.
And anyone who sees the Bush Energy Bill as a positive thing is as dumb as a brick or stands to make some $$ off of it.
But, what all this comes down to is our society. We are so focused on ‘ME’ that we are penny wise and very pound stupid. I want my SUV, my cheap gas, my McMansion, etc. We need to think more globally. The Extreme Christian right is the poster child for this. They preach love, compassion & kindness. But only for those who will do as they say for ‘ME.’ Go to any White Baptist Church on any given Sunday morning. It is a fashion parade in the shinniest SUVs (all 2003 and newer). We are hypocrites.
I am not perfect, and I do not live with solar panels. But, I do know a much greater effort could be made by our government, not just band aids. Clinton/Gore made some efforts, but let’s face it folks, there really is not much difference in a Democrat or a Republican. They just play different games to get the same power to help them and their buddies make $$. Any politician who tries is quickly put down.
I do not have the answers, but if we all work hard TOGETHER, and not playing politics, maybe we could make it work!
By Jack
August 8, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
Augustine, not near as much as I.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 8, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Kind of hard to know what the energy policy is when Dick Cheney is holding/held secret meetings. When Hilary Clinton did that for national health care, boy, what an outrage.
As for my family’s policy, we have one car, a 95 Saturn, and last week got 31 mpg, mostly city driving. My husband uses public transportation, and my daughter and I walk lot. We’re currently paying $2.34 a gallon.
By Nikita
August 8, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this
um, hey. not to crash the party here but I bought a new car last week. I drove the Toyota Prius, which is now roughly $23K, a reasonable amount. The price isn’t the issue (for me, at least). The issue is that hybrids don’t generally exist in the same diversity and functional range as gas cars and neither do diesels. I wanted something with good gas mileage and a cargo hold for around $20K. and I could best get that in a station wagon, not a Prius or a Ford Escape.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
James,
How does a person think “globally”?
And as I am not one who wants to “work together” to solve the problems; prefer to see Leftists removed from the decision making process altogether, I am interested in knowing how you go out and call people “stupid as bricks”, berate Christians — and then suggest we all “work together”?
Just how, exactly, is that supposed to work?
By sct
August 8, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Meanwhile, away from the fantasyland Big Oil welfare bill Bush is about to sign in New Mexico today, oil prices just hit another all-time record, $63.00 a barrel!
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
Kind of hard to know what the energy policy is when Dick Cheney is holding/held secret meetings. When Hilary Clinton did that for national health care, boy, what an outrage.
If those meeting that the VP held were secret - how do you know of them?
Hillary was elected to no office at the time.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
Meanwhile, away from the fantasyland Big Oil welfare bill Bush is about to sign in New Mexico today, oil prices just hit another all-time record, $63.00 a barrel!
I don’t know how that could possibly be. I thought we invaded Iraq so that that President Bush’s “oil buddies” could get their hands on cheap oil. Isn’t that how it went?
By Jack
August 8, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
They will come up with cars that are not dependent on gas the same time they start up the fair tax and do away with the IRS.
By Sct
August 8, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
More sticker shock this winter…….
Natural gas now trading at almost $9.00 per mmbtu.
Almost double the normal summer cost.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Can someone please answer my question?
When are the Leftists going to produce these “energy efficient” automobiles?
And what could possibly be holding up their progress on these “alternative energy sources” that they have been talking about for 30+ years!
By E. Lewis
August 8, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Maybe if you are an executive at one of the large oil companies.
By me
August 8, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
I gotta agree with taboga. Leftists should not be involved in discussions. All they do is tell you what you can’t do. When do you ever hear a liberal or dummycrat offer a viable solution to a problem? All they do is whine and obstruct. The reason hybrids are not popular is they are not practical. No one wants to pay a premium for a car with only a slight imrovement in gas milage. They never get the milage they claim, and they are half the car. Try getting a family of 5 in a piece of junk Prius. Or accellerating from a stop light with a family of 5 im the car. Gee, I wonder why people don’t want them.
Also, hybrids use very expensive batteries. What happens when the batteries die? How are you going to dispose of them without polluting the ground? Sure, hybrids might offer VERY slight improvements in tail pipe emissions, but what about the damage the batteries can do to the environment if not disposed of properly.
Cars only account for about 30% of the pollution caused by vehicles. Commercial trucks account for the other 70%. Shouldn’t we be targeting those since improving their pollutants will have a much larger impact on the environment? Raising the fuel economy standards of cars will only offer very moderate impact as far as pollutants are concerned. Go after the trucks and you will see a much larger benefit.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 8, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Hey, Jack. I’m headed to Canandaigua on Friday, to Roseland Park, now a water park. Beautiful little city, Canandaigua. And yes, to stay on topic, I’m carpooling…
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
8More sticker shock this winter……. Natural gas now trading at almost $9.00 per mmbtu. Almost double the normal summer cost.*
The next thing you know, Jimmy Carter will be back on TV telling us all to put on a sweater. Again.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Hey, Jack. I’m headed to Canandaigua on Friday, to Roseland Park, now a water park. Beautiful little city, Canandaigua. And yes, to stay on topic, I’m carpooling…
Does a car use less gas - if you put more people in it?
By Jack
August 8, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
Hey Sandy/Sanhan, boy does that bring back memories. I got kicked out of the bumper car rides at Roseland back when we lived there.
By sct
August 8, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
“The next thing you know, Jimmy Carter will be back on TV telling us all to put on a sweater. Again.”
It sure beats what president Bush will tell you, “open a window.”
By Jack
August 8, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Taboga, yes it does.
By Scalia
August 8, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
taboga, aren’t you basically complaining? Wouldn’t it give you people on the right pleasure to know that you came up with the fuel efficient car? That way, you can dangle it in front of all of the leftist and show how mighty, and arrogant that you really are.
As for what I was saying about the universities: sports run the universities and the money they generate. That’s why the majority of pro-athletes, if they graduate at all, are sociology majors.
By Whiley
August 8, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
How I help save the planet: All electric in home, recycle, only read the paper online, drive very little, live within 3 miles of the office, don’t drive an oversized car (would purchase a hybrid, but cannot on my fixed income) don’t have any children, (that alone saves thousands in gasoline consumption per year.) don’t purchase plastic garbage bags, use the free ones from the store along with paper bags. always donate if possible, never just throw away, There are so many other things, don’t have time to list.
So what is this Bush’s energy policy again?
By Tony
August 8, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Let me answer that one for you Taboga
First, the only way to limit our dependence on foreign oil is to produce more of it here. No amount of hybrid cars or ethanol is ever going to limit our consumption. We import 58 percent of our oil. So how do we turn that around?
Easy. Start drilling for oil all over the United States. Let’s start with the Gulf coast .. including the Florida Gulf coast. Then we to go ANWR in Alaska, then take it from there. We need to send the rigs in to start tapping for black gold. While we’re at it, how about a crash program to start construction of more nuclear power plants. That is the only way to get it done. Unfortunately, chances are that will never happen. Why?
The same people who are whining that we are dependent on foreign oil are also the same leftist environmentalist extremists who don’t want us drilling for more oil here. It would damage the environment, they say. Never mind that there have been tremendous advancements in oil drilling technologies…the kind that would limit such an impact. But it doesn’t matter. To the anti-capitalist enviro-wacko, all the land is sacred and the oil must stay in the ground.
So what’s going to happen? Nothing. We’ll keep buying most of our oil from other countries, subjecting ourselves to the whims of our Islamic overseers in various Middle Eastern dictatorships. The President of the United States (whomever he or she may be) will continue to drop to their knees and kiss the ring of whatever Saudi Arabian Prince visits the White House.
But make no mistake: it doesn’t have to be this way. And you have your friendly neighborhood environmentalist to thank for it. No one else.
By Jackie
August 8, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
CNN has news that oil is selling for $64 per barrell; Saudia Arabia closed the American consulate and Krygestan kicked the U.S. Air Force out. Sounds like Dubya energy policy is falling apart. I personally think we should keep a wary eye out concerning the announcement that the military has drawn up plans for fighting battles here in the USA. Do you believe the terrorists will have enough manpower/firepower to launch a ground attack in this country with all the guns around? Just a thought!
By sct
August 8, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
So let me get this correct Tony.
Republicans control the White House, both houses of congress and have control of the Supreme Court but somehow the enviornmentalists control policy?
How is that possible????
By JB
August 8, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Is it possible for taboga to provide an original thought or idea without copying and pasting someone else’s comments in his post?
Energy wise, we’re in a bad way. And honestly I don’t think either side has a clue as to what to do about it. We’ve handcuffed ourselves so long. One side pushes oil like a Columibian drug lord and the other won’t allow things to happen for fear of upsetting a few antelope in the forest. We need to increase the use of nuclear power to fuel industry and residential energy along with using hydrogen fuel as well. Eventually it would be great to get an efficient and effective hydrogen powered car, but right now one of the problems is fitting enough fuel into a fuel cell to give it enough range. But that is not a problem for stationary power plants. So why aren’t we utilizing hydrogen in this capacity? Does Bush’s energy policy encourge the development of this or does it merely give subsidies for the use of existing fuels and technologies?
By Jack
August 8, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
SCT. Yes, the enviornmentalists saw to it that legislation enabling the construction of more refineries was killed before it could come up for a vote. Thats what its all about, the votes. Money is second.
By JB
August 8, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
Oh and Tony, one of the greatest environmentalists of modern history was a REPUBLICAN president. Some guy named Teddie Roosevelt. He was one of the first people of power to realize how important it is to preserve the environment around us, not because it is economical or because there is some strategic advantage in it, but because it is something to be enjoyed and marvelled at like works of art, and preserved because it will disappear otherwise. Now there are extremes that are unnecessary, but preservation cannot be totally abandoned so that you can drive your SUV down 400 every day.
By Tony
August 8, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY WASHINGTON â€â€? The Senate gave a green light Wednesday to drilling for oil and gas in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, handing President Bush a big victory and dealing a blow to environmentalists.
The 51-49 vote sets the stage for energy exploration in 1.5 million acres of the 19.6-million-acre refuge. It also showed the increased power of the Republican majority. Two years ago, the Senate rejected drilling 52-48, but Republicans gained four seats in last year’s elections, and those votes proved decisive.
Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid and Maria Cantwell of Washington, vow a parliamentary fight to keep oil rigs out of the refuge.
Read it for your self sct. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-arctic-drilling_x.htm
By joe
August 8, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Toe-booger, jeez.
I have an idea of no what you where trying to says.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Harry Reid is an a$$. He said social security was the best thing the govt. ever did for the people then he introduced legislation enabling members of congress to not pay into social security but pay into their own retirement instead. Off with his head!
By Tony
August 8, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
1960: President Eisenhower declares that 8.9 million acres of tundra and mountains in the northeastern corner of Alaska be set aside as a protected wildlife refuge.
1980: Congress expands the refuge to 19 million acres and declares part of it wilderness. Also proclaims that potential oil reserves in the refuge’s 1.5 million-acre coastal plain be considered for development, but only if Congress specifically authorizes it.
1995: Congress, using the budget process, authorizes oil drilling in the coastal plain, but President Clinton vetoes it.
2002-2003: The House repeatedly approves drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, but the Senate rejects drilling, unable to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster.
November 2004: Republicans gain three seats in the Senate, expanding their majority to 55. ANWR drilling advocates predict the increased GOP strength will help to open the refuge to oil development.
March 2005: The Senate inserts into the budget a revenue provision that anticipates oil lease sales in ANWR. A Democratic-led attempt to strip the provision from the budget measure falls short 49-51. The budget document becomes a vehicle for authorizing ANWR oil drilling.
You see, from the very beginning I stated that the United States could end our dependency on foreign oil, by drilling here and in construction of Nuclear Power Plants. I also stated that we are much more environmentally safe. But what is the first thing out of the left? No one else!
By Bobb
August 8, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
It’s called supply and demand, as well as capitalism. As long as Americans are willing to pay for gas at any price then there is no incentive for anyone to invest a whole lot in alternative fuels. When investing in alternative fuels starts to look profitable, ie, there is a market for it, then we’ll see more action, as long as they aren’t regulated out the wahzoo to point nothing makes it profitable. Guess we could make it a government project and have it cost 100 x the cost, run years behind, and provide a compromised product that no one wants. Rest assured, though, that nothing will satisfy the environmental lobby. Lawsuits will abound, lawyers will get rich, and progress will continue to be halted.
By Brian Curtis
August 8, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
And Tony continues to do his duty, repeating the chant that “there’s only two options: more oil from overseas, or more oil from here. No matter what, there MUST be more oil.”
Good boy; I’m sure Ken Lay and his buddies are proud of you for swallowing the hook.
Wake up, folks. We need to back away from our dependence on oil entirely, not just hunt around for new sources in the hopes that more will magically appear. Exxon & Co. would love it if we kept on the same track we’re on, buying more oil and guzzling more gas because “Hey—we deserve it! We’re Americans, durn it! And we don’t care about the long term consequences!”
For those trying to follow along at home: yes, there is money to be made in developing and selling other types of energies (solar, nuclear, etc.). And yes, the oil and gas companies are lobbying hard to make sure any such initiatives are squelched before they even start production, to protect their profits. Then they can whine about how “It’s all the fault of those darn ol’ environmentalists! How dare they want breathable air and drinkable water when there’s profit to be had?! It’s an OUTRAGE!”
And the congressmen they own all nod in unison and pass another subsidy their way. Truly, we have great and wise leaders in Washington….
By taboga
August 8, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
You’re still not doing enough. We need to get back into log cabins and create jobs for the candle-makers. Out-houses will do just fine and will reduce our dependency on fertilizer at the same time. We can tear down the shopping malls and business parks so that our horses and cows will have more room to graze. More horses and cows - even less dependency on fertilizer. The buggy will get us where we need to go - although I don’t know where that might be.
Going backwards could be quite a treat!
By taboga
August 8, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Toe-booger, jeez.
I have an idea of no what you where trying to says.
And I am afraid that you are the average Joe on the Left. You might want to try re-reading the post. Or go to the bus stop this afternoon and get some help with it.
By Jackie
August 8, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Many of you are too young to remember, but, in the early 80’s a NASCAR driver and team owner, Smokey Yunick, modified a Chevy Vega using a 4-cylinder Italian diesel engine, his modified version of a 4-speed transmission and a set of developmental tires on this car. He drove from Daytona Beach, FL to Washington, DC and average over 80 miles per gallon using this technology. Drilling in ANWAR will yield a maxiumu of 100,000 barrells of oil daily after the companies explore and build the infrastructure. This maximum yield will occur within the next 10 years, at best. We currently use over 2 million of barrells of oil daily. As a side note, why does the state of FL have a waiver from the Fed Gov to restrict oil exploration and drilling in it’s territorial waters while other states do not enjoy that exception?
By taboga
August 8, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Brian,
How about being a good sport and show us all the proof of all these wonderful alternative energy sources being “squelched” by the so-called “big oil lobbyists”?
By Whiley
August 8, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
I’ve got it, why don’t we send everyone in prison to an isolated island to fend for themselves? Think of the money we’d all save in tax dollars.
By Ann
August 8, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
Wind, solar, tidal and other hydropower remain deliberately under utelized. VP Cheney snarls in snide opposition when energy conservation which could lower our total energy needs from between 15% to 30% is even mentioned. Meanwhile in Florida a nuclear facility today admits it spread radioactive sludge on surrounding farmlands and that it sent even more nuclear waste illicitly to landfills and “other unnamed destinations”. Three Mile Island, (America’s Cherynoble) with no way to access the melted core continues both to be regularly “burped” spreading radiation into the environment and continues to be a major safety of lifethreatening proportion to millions of Americans.
Any responsible, sane federal energy policy created would as a basic inclusion address US population and projected increases in the population. The current proposals by the Bush administration omits any mention that Bush’s current energy proposals are based on a deliberate, artificial, manipulated doubling of the US population by 2040 or 2050 — depending on what federal sources have been cited now for more than a decade. The little discussed, ill thought through means being used to deliberately double US population (and in the process catastrophically drive up national energy demands) depend on overimmigration with illegal immigration as a part of overimmigration to not just contine but to increase. NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA are propagandized as being only “trade deals”. In reality all three are based on the federal goal to double the US population artificially and quickly in order to explosively increase demand for energy and services. Each whether singly or taken together is dedicated to eradicating US national sovereignty and to leaving our children living amid the population density common to third world nations.
Simply curtailing overimmigration and enforcing existing federal laws on illegal immigration could remove the duplicitious projections of “future energy needs”. Both curtailing overimmigration and enforcing existing federal laws on illegal immigration are essential pre-requisites to being able to project realistic future national energy needs.
We can sit quietly by while America’s population is doubled by a few for personal gain or we can get involved in stopping overimmigration.
One of our current president’s first actions in office was to have US Census Bureau figures partially surpressed from release so the US public would not become aware of the coming catastrophic impact on infrastructure costs both overimmigration and illegal immigration guaranteed to bring with them. Osama bin laden certainly heard US Ambassador, Paul Celluci’s message carried at President Bush’s behest to Canada in June of 2001 expressing Bush’s intent to “erase America’s borders to all in Central and South America who wanted to come here”. Most Americans continue blithly unaware of Bush’s continuous efforts to explosively increase our population, his refusal to have our federal immigration laws enforced, and his refusal to honor his Constitutional oath or carry out his specified Constitutional duty to protect our states from foreign invasion. Today up to 1 out of 10 persons within our borders is an illegal alien. The corruption is so widespread that this week US Border Patrol just discovered an illegal alien (who was actively running a ring to import more illegal aliens) was working as a US Border Patrol agent.
Control illegal immigration by enforced deportations and we can diminish our current energy needs massively now. Control overimmigration along with stopping illegal immigration and projected future energy needs could be reduced by half of the need currently being projected.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
I’ve got it, why don’t we send everyone in prison to an isolated island to fend for themselves? Think of the money we’d all save in tax dollars.
Good idea - kind of like Papillon. And no Absentee Ballots either.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Whiley, wouldn’t that be Australia? LOL
By Jack
August 8, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Ann that sounds good but we were founded by immigrants. We need to stop the illegal ones only. Those here legally are just trying to improve their lives. Can’t penalize them for that. Maybe we should just anex Mexico and take their oil. We coulduse a portion of it to pay for the additional govt. spending involved with the anexation.
By Questions
August 8, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
Australia? wasn’t Georgia started as a penal colony? ok, not an island.
Has China’s growing need for energy been brought into the new great energy policy mix?
Think a few years worth of oil worth destroying ANWR. How many caribou head can you fit on a wall, anyway?
Think Absentee Ballots are most used by GOP voters.
By JB
August 8, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
I love to copy and repaste other people’s comments. —Taboga
By JB
August 8, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Ann, I don’t see where you explain why Bush wants the population to double. I’m not saying what you’ve said is wrong, just that you haven’t articulated why this is something he would do.
By me
August 8, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Yea Brian, show us the proof the oil cartel is squelching alternative energies. Last I heard all major auto manufacturers are sinking tons of money into hydrogen cell research. The first one to bring a viable hydro car to the market will make a killing. So how is big oil countering all the research being done by public and private business? The problem is that there is no viable technology to replace internal combusion engines right now. There won’t be for years. Not from lack of trying or the efforts of the oil cartel, but because there are too many HUGE hurdles to overcome.
Which brings up another point. Hydrogen powered cars do not pollute, but the process of creating the hydrogen used by the cars do pollute quite a bit. The whole hydrogen powered car as our environmental savior is premised on the fact that there will be a way to produce the hydrogen without creating much pollution. Right now, that non-polluting process does not exist. Will it ever? Who knows. So, based on the technology that exists today, the creation of pollution will shift from our cars to the hydrogen production plant, with no actual reduction in pollution. Again, the left offers no real solution, just an illusion. Sounds like Kerry during the election. He has a “plan”, but never tells you how he will make that plan into reality.
Does the left ever do any research into the issues they ignorantly speak of, or do they just keep spewing their unfounded trash? I’m all for preserving the environment, but I do not want to see businesses or our economy go into the toilet in the process. No one is willing to return to the dark ages and give up the conveniences they enjoy today (except the extreemly leftist enviro-nut), so we must continue to take smaller steps to our objective. All new technologies take time to develop. Much to the leftists chagrin, there is no magic button we can push to make things change over night. But we can continue to make improvements that make sense and will have a real impact.
By Questions
August 8, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
Think we could get done with the Middle East first, before we start thinking about annexing Mexico? Still have Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudia Arabia…..
By JB
August 8, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
At the current pace, one day down the road, not only will the U.S. be dependent on foreign oil (as we are today), but we will also be competing to acquire the oil with overpopulated countries like China and India. Countries have gone to war because they lacked the natural resources they needed. What’s going to happen when oil cannot be produced in enough quantity to satisfy both superpowers China and the U.S.? Which country gets it? The one who pays the most, or the one who takes it? We need to get off oil before it becomes a matter of life and death.
By Professor
August 8, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
I’m all for limiting imigration and shipping all the illegals out. But Ann sounds like the typical leftist conspiracy nut. Everything is always some dastardly conspiracy with them. If you want to control the damage being done to the environment, control the population.
As far as ANWR is concerned, there is oil under about 1.9 million acres, but Congress only authorized that a small portion of that can be drilled. With directional drilling and slant drilling, they can drop a drill almost anywhere from a relatively small location. The amount of land authorized for drilling is roughly the size of downtown Charolette, in a preserve the size of the state of North Carolina. I think the caribou will migrate a few miles away, without their heads hanging from a wall.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
The govenor of Alaska has said that the portion of ANWR that they are considering for drilling is a desolate wasteland 12 months out of the year. Not prisitine wilderness the environmentalists would have us believe.
By Questions
August 8, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
If the conservative way was such a GREAT THING, why on earth would liberals have even come about?
that would kinda be like being American and then deciding to move to North Korea….duh
By Tony
August 8, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
In many ways, the Bush and Kerry proposals are similar. Both candidates support tax credits for consumers who buy energy-efficient vehicles, greater investment in “clean coal” technologies, the creation of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, and greater funding for the development of hydrogen vehicles.
The main difference is that Bush would increase the supply of oil by expanding domestic drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Kerry opposes this idea and places greater emphasis on reducing oil consumption through renewable energy and government regulation requiring vehicles to get better fuel mileage. But experts agree that neither candidate’s proposal would achieve independence from foreign suppliers
http://www.factcheck.org/article288.html
By Jack
August 8, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
We should have listened to George Washington and had a 1 party system. No left, no right, just the middle.
By simon
August 8, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
taboga;
How does a person think “globally�?
start by pulling your head out of your A$$ where it appears to have taken permanent residence.
The only answer to this problem is to start a “Manhattan Project” on creating a renewable energy that speaks to our problems. Continued dependence on a finite fuel/energy source such as oil. You right wing nut jobs just don’t get it. OIL WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEPLETED! regardless of how many wells you drill.
The only long term solution is the creation of a renewable source of energy. America has always risen to every challenge put before it. If enough emphasis is placed on solving this problem, enough resources committed, then it will be solved. Obviously this requires vision and commitment from the highest echelons of government, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever.
By haha
August 8, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Questions - there are liberals because there are always sissies who want to moan and complain about anything and everything. Much like a child, they are too stupid and ignorant to see the error of their ways and always think they are right. They throw a tantrum when they don’t get their way (just look at their reaction to the 2004 election), and engage in issuing insults when someone out debates them with an intelligent argument, and think everything is a conspiracy against them (again look at the 2004 and 2000 elections. They didn’t lose because their candidate was a moronic loser, the election was “stolen” from them through fraud).
By Questions
August 8, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
LOL @ HaHa - thinking of Novak were you? all that could have been easily switched. with the arguments, intelligent debate, child, etc. but thanks…
and feel free to keep ignoring the actual popular vote count as well, on those 2 elections.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
If the conservative way was such a GREAT THING, why on earth would liberals have even come about?
Because Liberals are like the kid at the pool: Afraid to get in the water himself - but stands on the edge of the pool telling everyone else how to swim!
Again I ask - How come the Leftists haven’t produced the “alternative energy sources”?
They’re still standing on the edge of the pool…
By taboga
August 8, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Simon,
So if the “OIL WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEPLETEED” - what’s the holdup with you Leftists producing the alternative energy sources?
You standing on the edge of the pool too?
By Joe
August 8, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Liberals will continue to bash Bush no matter what he does. They honestly hate his guts. Is that right? Of course not but that is their mindset. If you don’t agree with them they hate you. So I guess that means they hate the overwhelming majority of Americans because they certainly would not agree with their views. Concerning the energy bill. I think its a good idea to have some sort of format to try an eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We need to drill more in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic. I personnaly could care less about high gas prices. At least everyone has to pay them. It’s not like you get gas stamps now is it??
By James
August 8, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Why do we need a viable alternative to the internal-combustion engine? A viable alternative to gasoline has been around since the early 1900’s. The Diesel engine was origionally designed to run on peanut-oil. It can run on practically any kind of oil, even waste-vegetable oil from the local fast food joint, with a little filtering.
We currently have the means to eliminate our need for oil entirely as it pertains to running engines in the form or bio-diesel. Bio-diesel can be made from any number for plants, most common is soy beans. We could be fully self-sustained on bio-diesel making it all here in the US. We would still require some oil for lubricating our engines and many of the other purposes that we currently use oil.
With that in mind, why do American’s have to give up any of the luxuries that we feel entitled to? The simple answer is we don’t have to!
I don’t like suv’s myself, but they are appropriate for some people. And if those people bought diesel powered suv’s and ran them on bio-diesel, then they would be enviromentally friendlier.
It’s not about eliminating choice for anyone, or even banning suv’s. It’s about finding alternative and making them economically viable. At the current cost of fuel, bio-diesel is very economically viable. And yes, it’s available right here in Atlanta today for those of you driving diesel powered vehicles.
So go get rid of your gas guzzling vehicle and buy a diesel powered vehicle. They get better mileage than hybrids, have tons of torque and hold their resale value better than comparable gas powered vehicles.
How many of you can say the value of your car has gone UP after owning it for a year and putting over 20k miles on it? That and I regularly get 42+mpg!
By simon
August 8, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
taboga,
you seem to be able to type, now try reading. go back and read my previous post and you will see what I suggest. There is nothing “leftist” in this suggestion.
think you can manage that? I don’t know how to post it in pictoral form.
By Sure
August 8, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
If liberals are stupid and moan and complain about everthing and always think they are right, what do you call the quagmire that we call Iraq? I’m sure that was an intelligent decision, and of course, the “fibs” that led us to war was apologized for.
By Sure
August 8, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
If liberals are stupid and moan and complain about everthing and always think they are right, what do you call the quagmire that we call Iraq? I’m sure that was an intelligent decision, and of course, the “fibs” that led us to war were apologized for.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
You right wing nut jobs just don’t get it. OIL WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEPLETED! regardless of how many wells you drill.
Simon,
That’s what I “read”. “You right wing nut jobs” would imply that you are not right wing. The rest of your post was the typical left wing nut job yapping about “renewable energy” that has been talked about for 30+ years!
And 10 years from now, I’ve no doubt you “left wing nut jobs” will still be talking about it.
By mit
August 8, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
left wing / right wing, you are all morons to me.
questions, bush won the popular vote in ‘04 while gore did win the popular vote in ‘00.
the biggest folly of the energy policy is the lack of regulations for automakers to improve fuel efficiency on vehicles. which are worse today than they were 20 years ago. compare the mpg of a 1985 blazer with a 2005 blazer. that doesn’t make sense.
Ford motor company actually buys out patented internal combustion engine components (20 in all) that improve fuel economy. one example is the patent for a device that would turn off the engine while idle and start the engine back up when the gas pedal is pushed. a new one of these devices is coming out soon I think. an alteration of the currently patented one. which will be on a foreign vehicle. not that you could call ford domestic or anything. oh, but they do have a nascar vehicle, which will soon mean nothing when toyota comes in.
Ford and goodyear tires bought out all the electric trolleys so they could have buses. the list goes on. this new policy will do nothing to curb our current gas consumption or our dependence on foriegn countries for it.
giving tax breaks to oil companies to find alternative energy resources is just laughable. My car can run on ethanol but where can i fill up with that? the biofuels have hit one snag after another, and its not because its hard to do. hydrogen fuel, pointless until you can find a way to produce it without using fossil fuels and finding a way for the morons at the pump from blowing us all to kingdom come. so what’s the answer? stop giving people money for nothing and their chicks for free. oh, and vegatable oil.
By David
August 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
mit,
You can get some pretty nice ethanol at your local liquor store! Kind of expensive, though.
By SteveSC
August 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
One way to use less oil is to invest money (yep, everybody’s money)in commuter rail networks for major cities and high-speed regional rail links (example, Atlanta to Charlotte), using electrified lines. It seemed to work pretty well when I was in London two years ago.
By kimberly
August 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Joe, what comments to you have about the people who hated Clinton’s guts when HE was the President we should all stand behind? How do you respond to their venom against a leader under whom we had, for the most part, jobs, affordable energy, growth, peace and prosperity? What about the venom spewed by the right against his wife because… because WHY? Because she TRIED to tackle the overwhelming issue of healthcare, or the lack thereof, for millions of Americans? Why did they vilify a woman who stood by her man after his affair, and against a man whose worse sin was having an affair (but not dumping his wife like so many Republican leaders did)… and what about the eternal screeching and millions of tax dollars toward investigating a real estate deal on which they LOST money? Hmmm… JOE? What do you say about THOSE people?
By Vince
August 8, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Energy efficient cars? Where are they? GM had the rights to them years ago, and passed citing, “This isn’t economical.” Then GM turns around and loses 9 billion in a quarter. I hardly think the issue is a “left” issue. Bush’s bill offers 11 billion, which is hardly enough. 3 billion of that money will go to support oil and gas companies. (I guess they are hurting with these high gas prices). This bill also REPEALS the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, which has been a pillar of consumer protection and supporting the search for alternative forms of energy; so now, we are vulnerable to Enron like schemes that threaten the stability of our energy supplies. The bill also gives the Federal government the authority to override states in placing liquefied natural gas plants - which poses serious security concerns for people living in surrounding communities and does nothing to alleviate the energy problem. So, I guess once again Bush and his Budget Banglers and his followers are going to blame this on the “left”. I don’t buy it when the language comes out of the Bush White House.
By mit
August 8, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
for all the anal, wannabe english professionals who will claim your points don’t count because of misspelled words.
it is vegetable and not vegatable oil.
By simon
August 8, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
I did use the term “right wing nut jobs” because these are the people (mostly) that seem to think the solution to all of our problems is just to drill more wells. Why can you not understand that oil exists in FINITE quantities. Perhaps it will help you if I give you the Websters definition of finite:
Main Entry: fi·nite Pronunciation: ‘fI-“nIt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire 1 a : having definite or definable limits b : having a limited nature or existence 2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought 3 a : less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer b : having a finite number of elements 4 : of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number) - finite noun - fi·nite·ly adverb - fi·nite·ness noun
Now one more time, and I am typing slow since you apparently do not read fast:
The only long term solution is the creation of a renewable source of energy. America has always risen to every challenge put before it. If enough emphasis is placed on solving this problem, enough resources committed, then it will be solved. Obviously this requires vision and commitment from the highest echelons of government, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever.
Of particular note “Obviously this requires vision and commitment fromt he highes echelons of government, whether Republican, or Democrat or whatever”
The point is that NO ONE from ANY party has shown any particular leadership on this issue. We Americans do great things when we are challenged. That is the suggestion I make. Throw the entire weight of our nation behind this, solve this very pertinent and looming crisis and move on to the next thing.
Get it?
By Bill James
August 8, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
If we really want to do something about energy/transportation we need to examine our assumptions.
Based on riders per day, the elevator is the most successful form of non-personal transportation. It has a mode of “on-demand” and “use and abandon” (you do not have to park it).
Cars are wonderful in that they gives us personal mobility.
However: 1. They require moving a ton to move a person (mass transit requires moving 3 tons to move a person) 2. Consume energy and generate waste moving parasitic mass (mass not cargo or people) 3. Require nearly 52% of land be designed to accommodate their mass. 4. For the first 16-22 years of your lives and the last 16 years people lose their personal mobility. People who cannot afford a car gain this economic albatross for life.
“Beam me up, Scotty” would be perfect. Move only the mass we want to move. I do not know how to do that.
We can apply computer network concepts to build a Physical Internet, moving people much as we move data packets. Combine personal mobility with “use and abandon” abilities.
Please visit www.IntelligentTransportation.com and call me.
Thanks Bill James 612.414.4211
By Jack
August 8, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Liberals are just perfect in every way. Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble.
By Brian Curtis
August 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Simon, most of us have learned by now that taboga is a name-calling, cowardly fool who never has anything of substance to contribute. He can’t make or defend any points, just call names.
Early on (a few weeks back), taboga tried to engage in debate, but he was quickly outclassed and retreated to childish insults, ignoring all question AND answers, and sneering at the very notion of having a forum at all. Now he just hangs around as a troll, tossing insults and pretending to have a working brain.
Ignore him; you can’t teach this pig to sing.
By taboga
August 8, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Simon,
Did the government invent the automobile? Did the government invent gasoline?
What has the government had to do with any of this?
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you Leftists always want to turn to the government for solutions - when the government has never done a damn thing constructive in regards to energy!
And thus I keep asking the same question: When are you Leftists going to get out there and produce the alternative sources of energy that you have been yapping about for over 30 years!
By Zack
August 8, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Complaining without taking action doesn’t accomplish anything. Those who voted for Bush generally have more money than those who voted for Kerry, and they can AFFORD gas prices, just like they can afford the SUVs they’re pumping the gas into.
If people would budget their driving and occasionally carpool, an “out of nowhere” change might amazingly happen.
Brian—Just to touch on last week’s discussion, I love how you talk about your “evidence” for your beliefs. You talk about abortion not being murder because a fetus isn’t recognized as a human according to law, even though no sonogram would support such a statement in the least. Guess what? We’ve been plagued by judicial tyranny now for a number of decades, and the problem isn’t improving. Don’t you realize that your making this statement is the equivalent of saying that Michael Jackson is innocent because a jury rendered him so. Why disregard the REAL evidence, Brian?
By Jack
August 8, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
If Al Gore can invent the internet, he should have the alt-fuel car done by now.
By Bruce
August 8, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
That’s a good point Taboga. It is so funny how the left is always demanding the government to do this and do that but at the same time they scream when the government tries to this and that. Saying the government should stay out of our lives…….
Brian C. I have seen Taboga ask several questions “TODAY” and not once has there been an answer given. Maybe if you would answer his questions, he would start answering some of yours.
By mit
August 8, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
david,
that type of ethanol is a little different from the ethanol that used to run cars. the big difference is the ethanol that goes into the car is not fit to drink, well unless you want to die. and it’s not expensive either. liquor is expensive because it’s not just ethanol. they have to add malt, barley, hops, and whatever else to make it taste good and then let it sit for so long getting the ethanol from yeast which doesn’t produce the proof you would need. though you are probably being sarcastic, you just can’t type sarcasim.
simon, the problem lies in that we (america) seem to wait until someone else does it, then we try to one up them. we are not going to be the first to do anything that someone else can one up us at. space and now stem cell research. korea is kicking our butts so now all of sudden bill frist changes his position. (a change for the better, but you see the way its done) it doesn’t matter who does it first, only matters that we (america) make the most money off of it and one uped your sorry a*.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Taboga- I agree with your last post. Scary.
By mit
August 8, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
sorry, we (america) will be the first to invent something as long as it kills. We are not in the business of saving lives.
By Lee
August 8, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Things that should have been on the bill, but I have not heard about:
Personal rebates on home solar panels. Personal rebates on home windmills. Personal rebates on buying a high mileage automobile. Personal rebates on energy saving appliances. Personal rebates for carpooling.
All I’ve heard about are “tax rebates for companies” who create some of these technologies. What about getting a wind generator on every building in downtown? That would help reduce strain on the energy grid, reduce energy bills all around. How about harnessing lightning as an energy source? We seem to have an abundance of it!
Companies do not change personal habits, and until personal habits change, there will still be the desire for 9 mpg cars that haul metal, and not people.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
and we’ll beat up anyone who disagrees.
By DRJ
August 8, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
So, conservatives cry when government tries to “regulate peoples lives” but they turn around and support a gay marraige ban. Is that not regulating lives. What a bunch of hypocrites!
By simon
August 8, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Thank you Brian for your comment, obviously in a battle of wits Taboga is unarmed.
Taboga,
Ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Produced the A-Bomb and ended WW2 earlier and with much less loss of life than if we had not got behind this massive undertaking.
Ever hear of putting a man on the moon? JFK made it a priority to get that done by the end of the decade. Guess what? With the emphasis that was placed on this goal it was completed ahead of schedule.
The proposal was to create a similar air of importance and urgency around creating/finding a renewable source of energy and stop our dependance on fossil fuels.
Of course you are such an ignoramous you see this as a “government solution”. No project of this scale can ever succeed without LEADERSHIP. Where do you think our leadership lies? Oppenheimer was not “the government”. nor were any of the other scientists that made manhattan or man on the moon possible. They were individuals brought together because of their expertise in the various disciplines to make these projects a reality. The government (LEADERSHIP) had the VISION to facilitate this to the benefit of ALL AMERICANS and in many instances ALL OF MANKIND.
Since you want to make this a right/left issue, what exactly has the right brought to the table over “the last 30 years”? All I can think of are disasters like Enron, Exxon Valdez oil spills, the fleecing of the people of California by Enron and like entities, War, War, War. And the solution you bring? “let’s drill more wells”.
What has the left done over the last 30 years? Apparently nothing. Which do you consider more damaging?
By David
August 8, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
mit,
Indeed, I was joking. Though the ethanols aren’t actually chemically different to my knowledge; the undrinkability of commercial ethanol has more to do with chemical residues from the purification process and the concentration of ethanol.
As for typing sarcasm, I suppose I could have ended my post with “lol,” but every time I see that I want to put my fist through my monitor.
By Jack
August 8, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
When gas gets as high as in Europe is when the govt. will try to do something. Would you slay YOUR cash cow if you didn’t have to?
By mit
August 8, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
the govt. is there to regulate business so that it doesn’t take advantage of the consumer. like eron did. but the govt is their buddy so they’re an exception. yeah, like martha stewart did, she is the real person that derserved to go to jail. Martha Stewart, the bully of the little guy who takes 20 thousand instead of 20 million. Man, i bet she wishes she took alot more.
today, the govt is the oil business therefore you just gave Bush a months worth of speech material, thanks.
the govt didn’t invent potholes either. why should they have to keep repaving them?
the govt didn’t invent electricity. why should you be able to afford it?
the govt didn’t invent food. why should you have more than others?
man this IS fun. do some more taboga.
By mit
August 8, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
i feel you on that one david.
LOL, don’t break your hand though
By taboga
August 8, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Well, it looks like I am going to have to thrash yet another nit-wit Leftist.
And yes, that is you Simon. And just to show you how much of a sport I am, you can team up with that other idiot Brian. I give you permission under one condition: You must come up with something original!
And no, original is NOT saying “Bush Lied”, “War for Oil” or “Where’s Bin Laden” — those have already been exhuasted.
Let me know when you have your links ready and Google is up so that you can cut and paste.
“Nazi” is not original either. Just in case you were wondering.
By EnronNOT
August 8, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
yeah, the whole California energy ‘crisis’ a few years ago was just the result of Enron manipulating supply lines for increased rates. not a REAL shortage.
oh, has Taboga come out with ‘what is eron’ yet, while I am keying here?
and someone wonders why his moronic questions are not answered.
but we know this bill signed today will resolve all the U.S.’s energy problems. but expect much higher pump prices.
looked up Lincoln Navigator mileage earlier today. 18 HWY….that is so socially irresponsible, do not know where to start.. The “MARKET” will EXTINCT us all. and the rest of the critters will say GOOD RIDDANCE to humans.
By Mother Mary
August 8, 2005 05:16 PM | Link to this
I wish you all would stop this “left” (hate em), “right” (hate em) stuff. We all want the best for our country no matter what our beliefs! People on the left aren’t devils; they’re just different from people on the right. People on the right aren’t demons; they’re just different from people on the left. With the division and the hatred growing between people in this country we don’t need to worry about an outside enemy. We are destroying ourselves.
By taboga
August 9, 2005 07:27 AM | Link to this
Another fretting, doom and gloom Marxist (EnronNot) weighs-in.
The Lincoln Navigator is “socially irresponsible” and the Market is going to “EXTINCT” us!
And something about Enron being the cause of aids in Africa or some such comparable nonsense.
Good show Comrade!
By Brian Curtis
August 9, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this
Taboga’s particularly desperate for attention this week, isn’t he? Must not have gotten his Ritalin. Silly, silly taboga!
By simon
August 9, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this
Too bad Taboga that you are unable to read, since your continued moronic posts do not address anything I suggest. Obviously you do not possess the intellect to contribute to a discussion, just the typical three year old behaviour of calling names and throwing out a bunch of inflammatory words that no one has spoken but you.
Once again, though you will never get it, my suggestion is not a left/right suggestion. It is simply one idea towards a discovery of a solution.
By taboga
August 9, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this
Comrades,
What have we learned over the past week?
That getting a photo ID is insurmountable to Democrats…
The future of women in this country hinges on Sandra Day O’s replacment…
Labor Unions are needed to save the oppressed American worker…
Our high school kids rank 49 of 49 in math and science (but have a firm grip on the condom and cucumber)…
Liberals are still talking about “Alternative energy sources” (30+ years and counting)…
And we’re finally going to get rid of those Indian mascots!
one Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - didn’t have this many insane story lines!
By taboga
August 9, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this
Posting atop one another: Dumb and Dumber!
How you doing this morning Comrades - what Marxist ideas are you going to bring forth today?
By Ken
August 9, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this
I apologize for not reading every songle post (been out of town) but it does not appear anyone has addressed the REAL issue… We use TOO MUCH ENERGY.
Sure we’ve talked about MPG b/c that is what we see everyday. We’ve blamed Bush and the administration for the problem but… This is an issue where neither the left nor the right can claim superiority. I see an armada of SUVs and other large, gas guzzling vehicles with both BUSH/CHENEY and KERRY/EDWARDS stickers.
I’m not going to complain to loudly b/c I don’t drive a hybrid vehicle either. The MPG isn’t awful, but it could be better.
Please look past vehicles as well… How many McMansions in Atlanta (housed by both party backers) suck up electricity for A/C (powered by Coal) like it is going out of style and natural gas for heat.
Our society as a whole no longer cares about the environment, at least not to the point where we would consider making real changes to the way we live. How many people take the elevator to go up or down a single flight of stairs? How many people compost? How many people teach their children (or even themselves) turn off the TV/Radio/etc. when not using them?
If the government wanted to REALLY do something about the problem they would do the following:
I also believe this will do the following for our country.
Normally I don’t like government intervention, but I am what my wife calls a tree-hugging conservative.
By Lyrazel
August 9, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
In truth, it does not matter what the Energy Bill contains. Americans dont care, dont want to know or will even read how many rider bills are attached to it because—we dont have to care, do we? We push a debt on to great-grandchildren, we have a war only servicemen & women need to deal with that we can see on Tivo at our convienence—but shut our minds to the plight of these volunteers with a good old American—Glad Im not there. In examining the subsidies being paid to the oil industry, one finds that Exxon/Mobil had a banner year over 180% profit will be getting significant tax-break and funding to develop and drill. Also passage of the Eminent Domain law was certainly fortuitous for now industry can drill on land once someones farm/national parks. How terribly convienent. For 50 years Americans have been conditioned to the comforts of private transportation. Our entire transportation system has been constructed to this mode—public transportation stalls ruined and riddled by waste, indecision and lack of riders because its inefficiancy. All the hubbub of environmental crusades against using fossil fuels fall on deaf ears as Americans drive anyway, use plastics without recycling and do not blink in regret. New technologies, alternative fuels, are ludicrously inappropriate for this modern society because of expense, development constraints, lack of interest and the substantial pork funding of the automobile industry. Being liberal or conservative does not matter, does not factor in the I-am-getting-mine identity Americans have and it is silly to think otherwise. Americans are independent-minded, less likely to care for folk outside their unit, unwilling to give up their freedoms and certainly uncaring about Americas environment and other nations environments. Our industries have left a black hole in many nations—now those other nations know the value of these resources having been taught well by our capitalists they are sticking it to USA and to their own nation constituents. Americans drive around and quote Alfred E. Newman a lot: what me worry? Fearless Leader is looking a lot like ol Alfred these days…maybe that is why so many can rally to his causes without conscious thought…
By Jake
August 9, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
Ken, those are some great ideas.
One of the problems that I have with Atlanta is the lack of available transit stations and transit lines. In New York, the transit system works so efficiently. If whites had not caused such an uproar when MARTA was first started, then the traffic problems would not be where they are today. But white people were afraid, as usual, that big black people would come into their neighborhoods and rob them. It’s amazing how these people live in such fear. That’s why I laugh everyday when I hear about the stalled traffic on 75 and 400.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 9, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
For anyone interested, www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/automobiles/09mini provides an article about inexpensive GM vans ($5000) rated at 43 mpg available in China.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
If only everyone listened to Mother Mary’s post this morning it would be a much better world.
By Archie
August 9, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this
I agree more with Diane on this issue. “Our love affair with mega-cars endangers our lives right now, says Easterbrook. The large vehicles are less safe than your average car and they churn through fuel like a space shuttle launch.” Those statements are so true as it aggravates the heck out of me to see someone driving a big SUV and talking on a cellphone. The individuals doing that speed up,slow down, waver in the road according to how much they’re into the conversation. It does seem as if everything Bush does benefits the ultra-wealthy. I do agree with Ken that both Kerry and Bush supporters drive those big SUV’s so the public has some responsibility but I am amazed at how the public can feel so good about being ripped off. Someone sells you a vehicle that only gets 16 miles/gallon and they charge 30 grand for it and the public loves it. I have known people that are dead broke but the vehicle they choose to buy is an SUV so the psychology of it all is screwed up.
By taboga
August 9, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this
Ken,
Is the amount of beer a person drinks - commensurate with the size of the can?
Why would my SUV be considered a “gas guzzler” when the actual gas used by it is far less than the average economy vehicle?
If a person was truly concerned about gasoline consumption - they would be in favor of rationing: A specific amount over a specific timeframe - to be put in whichever vehicle you choose.
But why in the world would we bothered with any of this nonsense! We are not running out of oil. We are not polluting the air nor all these other dreadful predictions.
The earth has an abundance of resources - we haven’t even scratched the surface yet.
As far as any “plan” goes, the very best “plan” that we could come up with, would be a “plan” to rid once and for all - the FATALISTIC attitude that we seem to have about everything!
By taboga
August 9, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Jake,
As Lewis Grizzard used to say: “Delta is ready when you are…”
By Ken
August 9, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
Taboga… Actaully, if you would have read my post, you would see that I did propose a type of rationing…
Rationing our consumption to the amount of energy we as a nation can produce… My idea of rationing would also be per vehicle rather than per person… I can see the benefits of either way, however, I believe rationing by the vehicle is far more economical and logistical…
I cannot dispute the idea that we have only scratched the surface of our planet’s resources. I am not a geologist. I am however an educated chemist and feel confident in saying the statement we are not polluting the air makes you look like a misinformed individual.
We ARE polluting the air. I worked at a manufactuting facility in North Georgia that used many nasty chemicals and solvents. The air quality within 50 feet of that plant was deemed more healthy than suburban Atlanta. Why…? B/C the smog caused by fossil fuels made it so.
This is not a fatalistic attitude. It is an idea that keeping the environment clean is better for everyonem, including you.
By Jake
August 9, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
If I read or hear that Lewis Grizzard phrase any more, I will shatter. That is the most overused phrase this side of the Mississippi. On the other side, it is: “I’m as jumpy as a virgin at a prison rodeo.”
By taboga
August 9, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Ken,
Los Angeles has dealt with far more smog for far longer than Atlanta has. Yet, the life expectancy there, like everywhere else - continues to rise.
We have some of the cleanest air in the world, our life-expectancy continues to rise, more trees than we had a hundred years ago and no one is gasping for air when they leave their homes or are keeling over after drinking a glass of water.
Yet, there’s never-ending hand-wringing over the “environment”!
By David
August 9, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
The Reagan energy policy of oil addiction and dependency is continued under Bush’s policy. People are just to apathetic to demand alternatives.
By Tim
August 9, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
oh I hope everyone missed me last week… just wish I was still at the beach! I think it is time for me to retire and move to the beach
this is just another issue for boths side to argue about… I am going to sit this one out… y’all have fun :)
Jake… I love that phrase… Blanche Elizabeth Hollingsworth Devereaux said that in an episode of “The Golden Girls”
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
I was pleased to learn last night that this new policy increases nuclear power plants. so on this simple-minded-labeling blog,(left vs. right) how does one who supports the ACLU(rights for ALL Americans), the NRA, nuclear power, Pro-Choice, and is neither Republican nor Democrat(but votes every election), get labelled? ….just curious.
By Jake
August 9, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Tim…do you mean “water lily”? Or do you feel “magenta”?
By Mara
August 9, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
taboga said - getting a photo ID is insurmountable to Democrats… Charging me $20 to get an ID is no different than charging a poll tax, which the 24th Amendment makes unconstitutional. Whether or not I can afford it is immaterial. Being required to pay a fee in order to vote is un-American. Unless they make the ID card free, the law should be challenged.
As for Dear Leaders “energy policy”, it sounds a good deal like his “homeland security” policy, his “spreading democracy to the world” policy, and his “borrow and spend” fiscal policy. Reward your friends, punish your enemies, and screw the rest of ‘em. Whether or not it’s good for the country as a whole isn’t the issue. As long as your friends and supporters are happy, it’s a workable policy.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 9, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Have to comment on the flippant “gasping for air” quip. When we lived in the Atlanta area, my husband, a runner in excellent health, required an inhaler for the first time in 30+ years due to the air quality. I, too had the sensation of breathlessness upon going outdoors, and I had never had respiratory or lung issues prior to moving there three years prior. How often are people in Atlanta warned to stay indoors because of air quality? This is an issue of quality of life, not necessarily longevity. I would argue that having to stay indoors is not enhancing the quality of life regardless of where one lives.
By Ken
August 9, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Taboga… Your post is another perfect example of how statistics can be twisted to serve any means…
Of course life expectancy is going up, we have some of the best medical technology ever known to man…
Of course people don’t die from their drinking water, we have some of the best treatment technology known to man…
None of that means we are not polluting the environment. It simply means we are better at masking the affects. Just think what our lives would be like if we DID NOT harm the environment, if we kept a balance between our selfish needs and the needs of nature.
And your post about the number trees we have is a load of crap. Atlanta alone has lost, I believe, 30% of her tree canopy in the last ten years.
By Tim
August 9, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Jake… sorry I am still a little slow… coming off vacation mode… I don’t get your questions
Sandy… the first couple of times I came to Atlanta I got migraines… could very well be a coincidence… but I alwasy wondered if one of the causes was all the smog in the air
By taboga
August 9, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Sandy,
You might not have noticed, but the warnings you speak of normally pertain to the pollen count. Which is a positive sign that our trees are doing quite well despite the environmental fretting.
You might have also noticed, that unlike you and your husband, there are millions of people “out of doors” around here. You might have noticed.
And I know a guy who got cancer after moving to Colorado. He didn’t have cancer here. What can we deduce from that?
By Questions
August 9, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
“And I know a guy who got cancer after moving to Colorado. He didn’t have cancer here. What can we deduce from that”
Colorado has better technology for detection?
just tryin’ to fit in with the Logic here…SNORT
By Jack
August 9, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
Don’t let him suck you in Sandy.
By Jake
August 9, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Tim…”water lily” is what Blanche called herself. And instead of being green, she said that she felt “magenta” because she hated that color. And it’s all good about the out of town thing.
As for the migraines, Atlanta’s air is full of things from pollen to smog.
By Ken
August 9, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Actually Taboga, unless you have allergies, you probably do not watch those days as close as others…
Some of the warning days are for pollen, but the vast majority are for the combination of smog and our very hot/humid air.
We can deduce NOTHING from the person who moves to Colorado and gets cancer. The same can be said for the non-smoker who gets lung cancer. A far more productive study would be tracking the percentages of respiratory illnesses/conditions for people prior to Atlanta and once they move here.
By Tim
August 9, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
oh Jake I think we could be great friends! lol… I have found someone who knows more about “The Golden Girls” than I do :)
By taboga
August 9, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
Tree huggers’� claims of mass de-forestation are completely unfounded based on the numbers. In the early part of the twentieth century, people cut down twice as many trees as they planted; now the United States grows 36 percent more trees than it harvests. Some researchers believe tree numbers are larger today than when Columbus arrived in 1492! In fact, less dependence on wood for fuel and construction has led to a decrease in wood consumption by half since 1900. Look to private conservation efforts, not federal government, for the 86 percent increase in reforestation, which helps create habitat for endangered species. Species like the California Condor are becoming extinct and environmentalists tout the Endangered Species Act for helping the condor and many other species. While the ESA’s sole purpose is to save species, in fact, not one recovered species has been helped by the ESA, according to many experts. Like the California Condor and the Wood Duck, countless species have been saved through the hard working efforts of private individuals and organizations. Robert J. Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/earthday.htm
I don’t normally like to post articles, but if you look at the reasoning given for the tree growth - it is completely logical. And in addition to what was stated, we no longer have raging fires which consume acres and acres of forestation to the degree that used to occur when the lands were not inhabited.
We don’t have a shortage of trees - take a look around.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
anybody see the pictures in Smithsonian this month, showing what several Alaskan glaciers looked like in the late 1800s and what they look like today? or is it National Geographic? get them both.
Now I realize there is no such thing as global warming, seems the glacies got tired of being photographed, and for reasons of privacy only they could explain, decided to move one-half or more of their body mass to the other side of the mountain they are clinging onto. Fat glaciers get no respect, you know.
By kimberly
August 9, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Regarding smog and pollen, actually, an excess dumping of pollen is a sign that the trees are in distress. You see this during droughts. But it’s definitely not good if you go for a jog, and have to brush the GRIT from your teeth when you get home. Air should not contain grit and toxic chemicals. Trees are our best friends in terms of clean air; yet the DOT cut down thousands of them along Hwy 400. Why? To make us safer? Um…. no. Because somebody’s buddy needed a government contract. I miss those trees every day. They lie and say it will make us safer, but really, it’s all about putting our tax dollars into somebody’s buddy’s company coffer. (BTW, the vast majority of deaths on 400 occur from someone crossing the center line, NOT from people driving into trees.) Personally, I’d love to work from home, save fuel and not pollute, but my company is not interested in our clean air initiatives. It’s all about FACE time.
By vince
August 9, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
I find the debates humorous. The insulting remarks seem to come from the right side more often than the left. But, when someone stops thinking and can no longer debate, they resort to name calling and school yard tactics. Facts, not opinion: Dumbya, oh sorry, Dubya has now taken 329 vacation days since starting his presidency. The all time record is Ronald (wait 7 years from the time the CDC announced AIDS to even make mention of the word in public) Reagan is 335 days in 8 years. Congrats, Dubya, you may actually end up doing something the most as a president.
By Jake
August 9, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
I agree. There is no shortage of trees. When I see all of the new developments, new roads, etc., I see just as many trees as there were when they started the road or development. And the Bradford Pears, yeah, those trees are the same size as the pine trees and there are so many of them.
Chilao…haha, I like that about the fat glaciers.
By Mara
August 9, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Yeah taboga, the environment is doing just fine. That’s why the shuttle astronauts could see the environmental depradation from space. That’s why the Antarctic ice shelves are falling into the sea. That’s why the african black and brown Bee Catcher is nesting in British hedgerows. Yeah, the environment is juuuuust fine.
By taboga
August 9, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
If man had been around many years ago and had had a camera - someone could have take a picture of the entire earth: Frozen.
But as we were not around back then, do you think that mother nature might have had a little something to do with the warming of earth?
Some of you folks have been so saturated with all this environmental nonsense that you’ve lost all ability to reason.
We can’t control earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods, droughts, landslides, mudslides, etc., etc. — all we can do is run, hide or wish…
But for some incomprehensible reason, many of you folks think we have “control” over mother nature to the extent that we can “destroy the planet”!
It can be nothing more than laughable. We can’t accurately predict the weather a week in advance, but some environmental nut predicts armageddeon 50 years from now - and hysteria sets in!
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 9, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
“No one is gasping for air when they leave their homes.”
My husband and I did, making your statement completely false. Or does my using the past tense make a difference to your “argument?” Thanks for teaching me how to play your obstructionist/deconstructionist, statistic-twisting, obfuscation game. My new energy policy is that I’ll stick to real dialogue rather than having to re-invent the wheel for you, Taboga…
By randy
August 9, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
We needed energy reform a decade ago but big business hates to see profits drop.I can’t believe that only after gas prices goes through the roof does our government try to do something.I have thought it crazy to give opec money when alcohol could help the pockets of our farmers. The fact it burns cleaner and would help our enviroment should in itself be reason enough to use it.We have the technology to use solar energy on a larger scale also.We as Americans need to stand up and tell the officals we elected we demand more from them than just padding they’re pockets from special interest groups. We can’t blame them for what they been doing for decades because democracy is the people and we have choice to allow them to get away with this for generations.I think we must stand up and tell our elected officals that we demand they look for better energy sources cost wise as well as more enviromently sound.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
August 9, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
Last week, I received the impression that you were one of those people who like’s to protect the “Life� of everything created by “GOD�, including the Environment. No matter what I do, I can never seem to get on your team. You are Pro-Life one minute and now you are willing to kill Earth and the people living on it, the next. Well, there is always next week………
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
August 9, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Tobago,
Last week, I received the impression that you were one of those people who like’s to protect the “Life� of everything created by “GOD�, including the Environment. No matter what I do, I can never seem to get on your team. You are Pro-Life one minute and now you are willing to kill Earth and the people living on it, the next. Well, there is always next week………
By Stay At Home Mom
August 9, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Most Americans are like me. I couldn’t care less about the environment as long as it is good until my lifespan is over. Global warming, blah blah blah. I don’t care. I didn’t breed a bunch of yard apes that have to carry on this planet. As long as it is good for the next 50-55 years, for me and my generation, so be it.
By randy
August 9, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
I think this is late in coming we should’ve been working on other energy sources for decades instead of letting gas prices dictate when we do something about it.I have wonder why we did not started using alcohol more years ago to help our farmers not to mention it is safer for the enviroment. We also have the technology to use solar energy on a greater level but we haven’t. We as Americans have allowed our elected officals to pad their pockets from special interest groups.We must stand up and say we are no longer going to tolerate this behavior and we demand more from them.This country is still a democracy so if the Government doesn’t do the right things its our fault.the powers to be will not do better until we take a bigger role in what they do.We must insist that our elected officials make oil companies look at other sources of energy as well as power companies. They will not until there is a tax incentive to do so because profits is what dictates what corporations do.
By Ken
August 9, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Again, statistics can be construed in any way a person wants…
We may plant more trees than we consume… That’s great!
We may even have a greater number of trees in this country than when Columbus got here… That’s great too!
The problems lie in where those trees are, the discrepency between mature trees and seedlings and our attitude toward them.
If a developer mows down a bunch of mature pine trees for track housing, then plants twice as many saplings we may have a net gain in tree number but the environment took a hit.
If we take down a bunch of trees in Atlanta and plant twice as many out in North Georgia we may have a net gain in tree number but our living conditions took a hit.
We as Americans do not see ourselves one with the land, when in fact we are completely dependant on it for EVERYTHING we have. Even our very bodies come from the Earth. The more we destroy it, the more we destroy ourselves. At some point, even the least aware of us will come to realize that.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
“We may even have a greater number of trees in this country than when Columbus got here… That’s great too”
more humans too, and since it appears it is time to stop planting trees and start cutting more down, can we apply that to humans as well? Sounds like we need a good war….
just a thought….
on a more serious note, you used to be able to travel from Delaware to the Mississippi River strictly by swinging through the tree-tops, never touching ground (except to cross rivers). Can we still?
Yes, Taboga, I will certainly agree that Mother Nature has surprises in store for us we can not control, especially the viruses. However, if you stick your hand on a running tail-pipe you will notice it is VERY warm. Where do you suppose all that heat generated actually goes? okay, multiply that by 6(or is it 8 now) billion people and counting…..
By taboga
August 9, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Ken,
We are not “destroying” anything.
If you haven’t done so, go back and dig up some of the environmentalists predictions from the 1970’s.
Here’s just a few:
By 1990:
—The air will be so polluted that artificial breathing apparatuses will need to be worn outdoors in our largest metropolitan areas.
—The ocean will be so polluted that tons of fish will die and wash ashore - causing coastline inhabitants to move inland to avoid the stench of millions of tons of rotting fish.
—The contamination of the environment will make it impossible to produce enough food to feed the existing population - causing widespread famine and disease.
Those are just a few of the ridiculous claims made back then. BUT, many people took them deathly serious. No different today.
Hysteria about nothing.
By David
August 9, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Yeah, dude. Those damned environmentalists were completely wrong. I mean, who in the world would actually believe that there is widespread famine and disease in the world today?
Global warming and evolution are conspiracies by scientists to subvert America and turn us all into COMMUNISTS!
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
okay, the Clean Air act? what year was that? don’t suppose it helped at all, then….Don’t remember black snow on your car?
the oceans, will not spewing forth dead fish, are definitely much more polluted than they were in 1970, in spite of cleaner USA water(cleanups), it being a GLOBAL issue. Not to mention fishing stocks….why there are moratoriums I guess.
so they missed it by a few decades…..
By taboga
August 9, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
However, if you stick your hand on a running tail-pipe you will notice it is VERY warm. Where do you suppose all that heat generated actually goes? okay, multiply that by 6(or is it 8 now) billion people and counting…..
It doesn’t get any more beautiful than that.
By Brian Curtis
August 9, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
People, you’re feeding a troll who’s desperate for attention. Talk to each other about the real issues. Don’t let taboga’s yammering idiocy distract you, he’s just hoping to provoke responses so he can sling more insults around.
Besides, he can’t read or understand anything you post anyway….
By taboga
August 9, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Since Eaton is not out here - Brian has appointed himself as the blog monitor.
He wants me to go away so that he can continue to post his drivel - without being made to look foolish!
By Jack
August 9, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
The treaty that Bush refused to sign would have brought our economy crashing. China and Russia and India were not going to sign them and they send more crap into the air than we do. Why don’t we go ahead and do it and they can flourish while we die.
By taboga
August 9, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
We went from Global Cooling to Global Warming. Are we now going to back to Global Cooling again:
As for the Icepacks and Glaciers? Some may be receding but “The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet,â€? which contains enough water to lift the world’s sea levels by 20 feet, isn’t melting after all. Instead, it’s actually thickening and Antarctica itself is getting cooler.1
A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica, far from melting, actually are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.2
The scientists, Ian Joughlin, a geologist at CIT, and Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, speculate the thickening ice sheets are repeating a pattern that occurred from 1650 -1850 when the Earth went through what became known as the Little Ice Age.3
The study’s lead author, limnologist Peter Doran, an expert on the study of fresh water at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is worried about the cooling’s impact on the environment.
Doran says cooling temperature not only is reducing the amount of fresh water feeding into Antarctica’s lakes, but it’s also making the surface ice thicker so plankton that use sunlight for energy are getting less sunlight. And that, he says, is bad news for the life forms that depend on plankton for food.”
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
This piece is not on subject, but, read it and come to your own conclusions.
WASHINGTON � Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks but information about their possible connections to al-Qaida never were forwarded to law enforcement, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.
Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger,” which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.
Weldon said that in September 2000 the unit recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists,” Weldon said in an interview.
However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Yes. Not only should we be the WORLD police, we should also clean up the WORLD’S polution, and end WORLD hunger. Why not? There is plenty of money the government can take from the wage earners HERE to benefit those that don’t pay taxes or even live in the U.S.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Jackie - Of course we wouldn’t want to offend anyone. They were here legally and they might get the ACLU to sue. Better to take nail clippers off of old ladies. We’re much safer doing that.
By Questions
August 9, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
So Global Cooling is just another one of those scientists-lying things?
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Jack,
My problem with this situation is that it appears that our government KNEW about the threats and KNEW they were planning to attack!
Why the inaction?; What was the political gain?
By kimberly
August 9, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Jackie, there were plenty of warnings, including an August 6th, 2001 memo warning of an attack using US airliners. So your question is WHY would the President then take a month-long vacation without so much as warning the FAA to keep vigilant on airport security procedures, let alone beef them up? Hmmm…. What is the gain, you ask? How ‘bout that Halliburton subsidiaries are showing profits increase by MORE THAN 200 percent in the last year? There are a handful of people making LOTS of $$$$$$$ off this “war on terror” even though we are actually no safer. What is the gain? Well, we all were, and many are, afraid… very afraid. And when people are afraid, we’ll believe any crap delivered down our throats by someone with big talk and a big swagger. It’s about power and money. It’s always about power and money. But since that bit o’ truth doesn’t SELL very well, they say it’s about God, Family, and good ol’ ‘Murican values. Uh-huh. Follow the money.
By Archie
August 9, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Jackie it has already been pointed out that it was incompetence that allowed 9/11 to happen. In other words, the guys in charge didn’t want to do anything because they didn’t think it could benefit them. Even after that you must remember that the CIA and the FBI weren’t communicating with each other that’s why an office of homeland security was created. Bureaucracy. Those guys weren’t stopped at the airports even though there was a some strong suspicion about them on that day. There was no political gain just plain incompetence. It’s hard to accept it but we as Americans can be just plain slack.
I don’t think Bush’s energy policy is a good idea for the very reasons laid out by Diane. Another poster named Ken did post some good ideas and Lyrazel did point out how the public’s attitude contributes to our problems. Maybe we should ask why the public is so fascinated with big SUV’s and why are we so apathetic about being lied to and ripped off.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
“What was the political gain?”
9/11 is the best thing that could have ever happened to our Beloved Fearless Leader
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
The evidence about Dubya and his lies are legendary! Let us not forget about the man that is really pulling the strings, Mr. Cheney. The current “energy policy” is corporate welfare for the energy companies. The public is upset about Enron and the actions the took place in that company, but, there seems to be very little said by the “conservatives” about the blatant theft of our resources by the “conservative” controlled Congress.
Essentially, these folks have stole from us, in plain sight, without a whimper by the “conservative” leaders in Congress. Are these the same people that ask us to make sacrifices for America, but, reach their hands into our pockets to give to their corporate prostitutes. The three largest energy companies had profits in excess of $15 BILLION dollars for the 2nd quarter of 2005.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Chilao. That last post of your’s is quite troubling. I guess Jimmy Carter would have done a better job? If you think 9/11 was a good thing, go to France.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Did I say it was good?
where?
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
Jack - without 9/11, what exactly would Bush be calling our Iraq activity? since it was planned long before 9/11. March, 2001 a request was made to the Pentagon to formulate battle plans. Public record.
what I meant, among other things..
By Zack
August 9, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
Bruce—You shouldn’t be surprised by Brian’s dodging questions and then accusing others of doing the same. Those with his worldview tend to be very inconsistent and hypocritical.
By kimberly
August 9, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
“Go to France?” That’s about as meaningful as “Delta is ready when you are.” I don’t think Chilao propelled himself to fame or riches on the burning embers of 9-11. But there ARE people who did. Why is it considered un-American to point that out? When did truth become un-American? Or asking question? Why do you hate freedom?
By Brian Curtis
August 9, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Go ‘way, Zackie. This one’s not about abortion, so you won’t understand it. Still bitter over losing another debate, are you?
Jackie: You’re right: 9/11 was the result of incompetence rather than active planning… but it was also a huge windfall for the Cheney administration. It gave them the perfect pretext to enact their whole agenda while the nation was swept up in patriotic fervor and afraid to question anything Fearless Leader and his cronies wanted to do.
As for energy policy: What passes for “environmentalism” among the current administration is doing all they can to roll back the accomplishments of the Clean Air act, Clean Water act, Endangered Species act, catalytic converters and other pollution controls, emissions standards, and anything else that the energy concerns find inconvenient or less-than-profitable.
I’m sure many conservatives will say these efforts have either failed or weren’t necessary (sometimes in the same breath!), but that level of disconnect from the facts is mandatory to still be a Bush follower.
Dependence on a finite and irreplaceable resource is, inherently, a dumb idea. Our current need to prop up dictators, sell arms, and invade countries for the sake of access to oil should demonstrate that sufficiently to all but the most stubborn and ignorant. (And, of course, taboga, whose level of brain death puts Terri Schiavo to shame.)
And a decision to “solve” this problem by destroying our internal resources—still in pursuit of a finite and irreplaceable resource—just prolongs the problem. It’s like selling off your furniture to buy more cocaine: eventually, you’ll run out and have to kick the habit anyway. Why not do it now, while we still have a roof over our heads?
By TT
August 9, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
You know, whether we agree with Carter’s energy policies and leadership abilities or not, we can all agree that he was a good, honest man. He fought for his country and never apologized for it. His contributions to conflict resolution have been invaluable. That’s more than we can say for any of our current leaders. Besides, if you’re a true Georgia native, you don’t spit in the face of a president from the Peach State.
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
I wonder why it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion about issues that affect all of us without resorting to name-calling and a lack of respect for others opinions and/or question(s)? We all have a lot to learn and we can be informed by some of the most unexpected people and sources.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
I’d rather stay in the US and VOTE, as well as Buy American(getting hard to do, but at least the profits MAY stay here)
France, been there, I’ll pass. Been ALOT of places. Did not grow up thinking my one life-time trip to MS or the Gulf Coast made me ‘well-traveled’.
I know it subversive to point out the OBVIOUS but…
I’ll repeat, 9/11 was the BEST thing that could have happened FOR Bush.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
If 9/11 did not occur, we would NOT be in Iraq. No doubt Jimmy Carter was a good & honest man. He would have been a good ambassador. He did not possess the gonads to lead this country. Remember when the Iranians had our people hostage, the deal he brokered with North Korea, the 20% interest rates? Quite stupid is he who thinks the war was started for profit.
By Bruce
August 9, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
You are really sinking low when you disgrace the memory of those that died in the 9/11 attacks by using it as a jab at the current administration just because you disagree with their politics. You should be ashamed……. I bet your Mom is really proud of you.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Did not grow up thinking my one life-time trip to MS or the Gulf Coast made me ‘well-traveled’? What was that supposed to mean? I didn’t think they used migrant workers in France.
By Jack
August 9, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
His Dad is really proud also.
By Chilao
August 9, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
thanks for your opinions, guys, duly noted.
did not get the migrant thing, unless the only people who are supposed to be capable of knowing what goes on in the next county are supposed to be migrant workers..LMAO
By kimberly
August 9, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Jack still thinks Iraq had something to do with 9-11. None so blind as those who will not see….. As for the Iran hostage situation… Hmmm…. What was that whole flap that required Bush the First to PARDON a whole bunch of people in his administration when the question came up of arms sales, contras, and holding the hostages until AFTER the 1980 election could be held… If no one under Bush I’s administration (in which an actor was the reigning puppet) was involved in such devious plots, then WHY did they require PARDONS?
By blablabla
August 9, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
jackie: could you clarify what you meant when you said this…
The public is upset about Enron and the actions the took place in that company, but, there seems to be very little said by the “conservatives� about the blatant theft of our resources by the “conservative� controlled Congress. Essentially, these folks have stole from us, in plain sight, without a whimper by the “conservative� leaders in Congress.
i’m not sure i follow who exactly are “these folks” and who’s stealing who’s resources. thanks.
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Jack,
I think I have to disagree with you about Mr. Carter. If you remember, he was one of the first members of the Adm. Rickover’s nuclear submarine, i.e., professional military officer. Secondly, if the young marine pilot of the CH-47 helicopter had not panicked in the desert, EVERYONE associated with that operation indicates the plan would have worked and the hostages would have been freeded. The 20% interest rates were due to fact that the oil companies used the situation to load oil onto their tankers and bring them to the USA, right outside territorial waters until the price of crude went up, remember that? For the Koreans, should we have attacked North Korea, who have one of the largest - almost 3 million - and best trained ground forces IN THE WORLD with our military? Would we use nuclear weapons when China and Russia supporting that country?
By Jackie
August 9, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
blablabla,
My point about that statement was, the public was upset with the actions taken by Enron because of the theft by a few, but, it appears the “conservatives” have said very little about the rape of the public when it comes to the “conservative” Congress stealing from us and our children. The second portion of that statement implies that the public outrage about this theft of resources is not being registered by the corporate media. Whatever happened to the liberal media?
By Mother Mary
August 9, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
SHINE, PERISHING REPUBLIC
While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire, And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the mass hardens,
I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth. Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.
You making haste feast on decay: not blameworthy; life Is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic.
But for my children, I would have them keep their dis- tance from the thickening center; corruption Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster’s feet there are left the mountains.
And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant, insufferable master. There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught — they say –- God, when he walked on earth.
Robinson Jeffers
By Jack
August 9, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Jackie - believe what you want. The majority of Americans old enough to know, know that Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents to ever lead our country. The pilot of the CH-47 helicopter did not panic. Sand caused the mission to fail. The Iranians knew that Reagan would have been afraid to sent LOTS of troops to get our hostages. That is why they let them go the day Reagan took office. Jimmy was too worried about what OTHER countries think. Nice spin about the oil creating our poor economy at the time. The oil companies are the root of all our woes aren’t they?
By joe
August 9, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Toe-booger, the only person you are making look foolish is you! It’s hard to tell if you’re just some hostile preteen boy or if you are as stupid as you come across. Whichever, you’re a pitiful human and I feel sorry for you.
By kimberly
August 9, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Jack, did you buy some magic beans at the Fair, and grow a beanstalk, and climb it to the sky, and meet a giant named Ronnie who endowed you with these truths?
The Iranians had a DEAL with a group of Americans who had their own agenda…. Americans who shredded documents when the whole stinking mess made it to congressional hearings… Americans who got PARDONS in lieu of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
By Bruce
August 10, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this
Kimberly,
Please pass along the evidence you have to support your last post. What shredded documents have you pasted back together, what witnesses have you talked to, etc…. What group, please name them, and tell us the details of this DEAL.. You know anything other than your opinion on what you THINK really happened.
By Ken
August 10, 2005 07:43 AM | Link to this
Why is it not possible to simply agree that nearly all politicians (probably Jimmy Carter excluded) perform some level of unsavory dealings…? That is usually how these fine individuals get to their positions of power in the first place.
Right now the Bush haters are slinging as much mud as possible to get the Republicans out of office. Ten years ago the Clinton haters did the same thing. This doesn’t help ANYTHING. If we as a public cared more about the specific issues we would get more done. My district is a perfect example…
Cynthia McKinney should never, EVER be elected to anything, let alone the House of Representatives. Many folks on this BLOG would be better than her. However, b/c she feeds into the hatred for Republicans, propagated by many folks including this BLOG, she assumes a position of power. The same thing happens all over whether it is McKinney or Newt or others across the country. We need to stop that vicious cycle. That cycle breeds extremists who further polarize this country.
The fact is that most people on this BLOG are not too different in their thinking. Comprimise canbe made, but we must root out the extremists first. They have their place, but not in the mainstream…
By taboga
August 10, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this
Toe-booger, the only person you are making look foolish is you! It’s hard to tell if you’re just some hostile preteen boy or if you are as stupid as you come across. Whichever, you’re a pitiful human and I feel sorry for you.
Joe,
I would imagine that it would be extremely difficult for you to tell anything. But hey, Average Joe - I appreciate your sympathy!
By taboga
August 10, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Comrades,
I am happy to report that all is well with the environment this morning!
The birds are still singing and the trees are still standing — while the buses are moving about dutifully, transporting the children off to another day of multicultural training, sex education, Christian-bashing and anti-americanism.
All appears to be normal.
By Brian Curtis
August 10, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this
Ken: Good idea, but I’m afraid the current climate makes reconciliation unlikely.
By Lyrazel
August 10, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this
MotherMary I love Robinson Jeffers. Thanks.
Jimmy Carter was wrong. There was no oil shortage in the USA during the time he made his sweater-talk. He was helping establish OPECs control over the supply-demand of oil producing nations. Gasoline went from .30/gallon to .10/gallon immediatly the next summer. The USA had about 3 years worth of crude petroleum stored in its refineries. Sorry to bust the bubble wrap on Jimmy. He is a kind man, I am certain he wanted to spark an energy-consumption awareness but in truth he only suceeded in making the EPA a loose-cannon with more power than direction. After Raygun, the EPA has steadily lost its power with severe funding cuts that kept being parred as Daddy Bush got into office. Businesses across America have been instrumental in defeating air, water, environmental cleanups because it is profit first thinking. It is also documented that prior to 1066 the climate of the earth in northern latitudes was considerably warmer. It lead to the colonization of Greenland…perhaps we are going through another atypical climate change. Please note all you beach-blanket tourists ready to sun and fun in Greenland, there was a little Ice Age immediately following the warm years…Enjoy.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel,
I wish Mother Nature would make up her mind!
We don’t know whether to pour billions into the Global Warming scare or the Global Cooling scare.
But since we are eager to throw away billions at something that will make us feel good about ourselves - Mother Nature could at least do her part!
By Archie
August 10, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
“Right now the Bush haters are slinging as much mud as possible to get the Republicans out of office. Ten years ago the Clinton haters did the same thing. This doesn’t help ANYTHING. If we as a public cared more about the specific issues we would get more done”
I hate to admit it but you’re probably right Ken. The last sentence about the public needing to care more about specific issues is how I feel. I still don’t understand why it is okay that 45 million plus have no health insurance. That is as specific as it gets. I don’t know about Georgia but in my hometown Columbia,SC we have raised local taxes to cover for the lack of money coming from the federal government and yes I do believe Bush lied to the public about the reasons for this Iraq war. Bush did not allow 9/11 to happen, it was incompetence that allowed 9/11 to happen. Bush was going to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11. So many individuals associated with the White House have said so. These are specific issues as well as the high cost of gas and yes Bush needs to be called on these issues because I don’t see anything beneficial for the regular guy.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
These are specific issues as well as the high cost of gas and yes Bush needs to be called on these issues because I don’t see anything beneficial for the regular guy.
Open your eyes and look around. The “regualar guy” is labeled as such, basically because he’s a dime-a-dozen. But because of people who have the ingenuity and drive to make things happen in this country - the “regular guy” lives pretty damn well!
But as usual, the folks who would probably starve to death if not for those who provide the jobs and the comforts of living - constantly complain about what they don’t have and what somebody else is not doing for them. In other words: The Regular Guy.
By Archie
August 10, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Taboga you sound just as these people on this blog describe you— like a fool. The cost of healthcare or the lack of healthcare is a legitimate issue and that’s why it’s debated and the cost of gas is an issue and that’s why Bush was motivated to come up with an energy policy. It’s not about complaining it’s about making things better. My co-workers have grown children that have no health insurance but they work everyday. I know republicans that work daily but have no health insurance. That issue could affect a lot more people than just the 45 million I mentioned. It is a known fact that the rich and powerful do not serve in wars so yeah it’s an issue for regular people as to how war comes about. Everything can’t be reduced to a political philosophy and yes sometimes complaints are necessary to provoke change. Sometimes good complaints come from conservatives. People with drive and ingenuity have enough common sense to know that you have to take complaints seriously so that business can be improved. Airport security was an issue long before 9/11 and had someone followed up on those complaints we may not have had a 9/11.
By Ken
August 10, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Golbal warming… Global cooling… Who knows how any of it works… Only God does so anything we come with would only be a guess…
What we do know is that the resources on the Earth are not endless. The law of Conservation of Mass tells us that. But rather than looking for ways to maximize resource use through conservation or renewable sources, we continue down our current path b/c it is the path of least resistance.
But why would I expect anything else. This country does not conserve ANYTHING. We do not save money. We do not save time. We do not save food or energy. We are quite possibly the most wasteful bunch of folks in history.
By blablabla
August 10, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
jackie:
yesterday afternoon you said: “The 20% interest rates were due to fact that the oil companies used the situation to load oil onto their tankers and bring them to the USA, right outside territorial waters until the price of crude went up, remember that?”
how exactly are interest rates driven by oil prices, and moreover, if interest rates were 20%, why would oil companies tie up capital in inventory and tankers and then sit them in the middle of the ocean?
By Tony
August 10, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this
A marvelous lesson appeared for me just now as I was exiting thru the garage, to come to this little playplace they call an office.
As I opened the garage door, I startled a large moth, which, upon spreading it’s wings, displayed a bright red “tail” hidden by the motley brown wings, more a “butterfly” than a moth.
It flew immediately to its perceived escape, the circle-topped window where it frantically tried to exit thru the invisible wall of closed glass.
I raised the third-car garage door in hopes of aiding it’s escape. That caused it to fly higher and higher and become entangled in a spider web. Fearful that it would remain entangled in the web, I selected a long-handled broom to assist him escaping the tangled threads.
At this, he returned to furiously pumping his wings and banging into the glass, which was, in his perspective, the pathway of escape, but remained his cage.
By simply turning his focus to one side, he would have easily exited his prison. Rather, due to his intent on one direction, he remained confined, captive.
Sound familiar?
By Wesley
August 10, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this
Taboga, What’s wrong with multiculturalism? Should the students go to school learning about the wonderful white men in this country, and nothing about anybody else? Should they grow up believing that nothing else exists other than the white culture? As for the Christian bashing, my friend told me that one of the objectives in their curriculum is: The student must demonstrate an understanding of the lack of validity in Christianity.
By Ken
August 10, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Archie… I hope you hate admiting the current state of our political process and not that you agree with me…
I think many people, not just President Bush need to be called on 9/11. In fact, I believe the Clinton Administration should be scrutinized far more on this than Bush. However, Bush should be called out for the handling of Iraq.
I however disagree with you on issues such as health care b/c I don’t believe that is the place for government of any kind.
If the government pays for health care, how much control should they thenhave over people’s lives… Should it prohibit recipients from smoking? drinking? their diet? other activities that make them a statistically proven “health risk” (i.e. promiscuous sexual activity)? If it’s my tax dollar, I think it should, but then that simply adds more cost to the program.
By Jackie
August 10, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
blablabla,
Interest rates are determined by the bond market. Bond traders use oil and other commodities as a medium of commerce. The more valuable a commodity happens to be, the greater the price of that commodity will become. Look at the current situation with the cost of gasoline; there is lots of crude oil and stocks of gasoline in the USA, but, since there are problems with the spread between inventory and demand, the bond traders have become nervous and have bid up the price of the gasoline.
The Federal Reserve uses bonds and the yield curves associated with those instruments to keep inflation under control.
Oil prices were getting out of hand and the Fed felt that raising interest rates would keep demand under control, therefore, bonds fell in price raising the yield (interest rate) on bonds.
By Ken
August 10, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Wesley…
Are you stating that part of the curriculum is a good thing…? If you are stating it is a good thing, then you are just as bad as folks who bash mutli-cultural education.
I certainly hope your friend is not a public school teacher, b/c, if in fact he is, that thinking violates the First Ammendment, as well as the goal of any education.
Students should be learning about all cultures. I learned about virtually every culture in my public school education from the ancient city of Ur to our current civilization. But we learned facts. Where were they in the world? What were their values? What Gods did they worship? What time in history did they live? What did they build or accomplish? Period. Never did we get anything that provided validation to these cultures. Nor should we. That is for our parents to decide, not school.
By kimberly
August 10, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
BRUCE, and all you younsters who weren’t aware of pre-Kurt Cobain America:
It was dubbed the “October Surprise.” In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before election day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq. As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter’s popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were returned at 12 o’clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.
The first meeting regarding arms-to-Iran occurred in July 1980 in Barcelona, Spain and not in Madrid as was initially reported. The Republican team met at the Hotel Princess Sofia and at the Pepsico International headquarters. The American team was led by Republican campaign director William Casey, who months later was to be named CIA chief by Reagan, and by Robert McFarlane, who later became National Security adviser under Reagan. Three months after Barcelona, a more important meeting took place in Paris. CIA agent Richard Brenneke testified that Bush was in Paris on Sunday, October 19, 1980 when he met with members of the Khomeini regime to consummate an arms package to Iran. Bush, along with Casey and other government officials, flew to Paris on a BAC 111 on Saturday evening, October 18. The plane arrived in Paris on Sunday morning October 19 at 8:40 a.m. European time.
During the Reagan administration, in which Bush I, former head of the CIA was Veep, there were all kinds of illegal covert dealings with drug-runner revolutionaries in South America and the sale of WEAPONS to Iran. Secret sales, that is. Payback time for the favor. Why sell arms to a country that took your people hostage like that? Hmmm….
Anyone want to weigh in on the Congressional hearings, testimony of Fawn Hall about shredding and removing documents, the convictions of Oliver North and John Pointexter, and the PARDONING of Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair?
Anyone else remember any of this? Anyone? Anyone?
By taboga
August 10, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Taboga you sound just as these people on this blog describe you� like a fool.
Why do you need them to describe me?
The cost of healthcare or the lack of healthcare is a legitimate issue and that’s why it’s debated and the cost of gas is an issue and that’s why Bush was motivated to come up with an energy policy.
There is no “lack of healthcare”. You may be referring to lack of “medical insurance”. The reason that it is “debated” is because the Marxists in this country would like to have the government in charge of our Healthcare. And they can go on to make it a costly and inefficient, below average medical plan like they have Medicare and Medicaid.
And the “Energy Bill” has been in the planning long before the recent increases in oil. You know why? Because a national energy plan takes a bit longer to formulate than it does to put a “Save The Planet” bumper-sticker on your car!
It’s not about complaining it’s about making things better.
No, it’s about complaining.
My co-workers have grown children that have no health insurance but they work everyday.
Children are the least in need of “Health Care”. And believe it or not - billions of children have survived without it in the past.
I know republicans that work daily but have no health insurance.
And I know Republicans that work daily and do not have a Football. What is your point?
That issue could affect a lot more people than just the 45 million I mentioned.
What “issue”?
It is a known fact that the rich and powerful do not serve in wars so yeah it’s an issue for regular people as to how war comes about.
It is a “known fact” that the overwhelming vast majority of ALL PEOPLE - do not “serve in wars”. And I bet if you were to take a look, the wealthy have a higher percentage of their sons fighting than does everyone else.
Everything can’t be reduced to a political philosophy and yes sometimes complaints are necessary to provoke change.
Who’s trying to “reduce” anything to a “political philosophy?
Sometimes good complaints come from conservatives. People with drive and ingenuity have enough common sense to know that you have to take complaints seriously so that business can be improved.
Of course they do - otherwise they wouldn’t be in business. What’s the point?
Airport security was an issue long before 9/11 and had someone followed up on those complaints we may not have had a 9/11.
Airport security was not an issue before 9/11. And if someone were to “follow-up” on all the complaints, tips, notices and all the other various forms that relate to the tons of information received daily on a wide variety of things - half our citizenry would need be employed in some form of a security occupation.
But it is easy isn’t it? I mean, once something happens - going back and digging in the tons of stuff, find what you’re looking for and asking “how come something wasn’t done…”
By blablabla
August 10, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
jackie:
the price of gas is based on the cost of constituent processes required to turn crude in the ground into gas in your car (exploration, production, refinement, transmission, distribution and the biggee…taxes). beyond that, gas prices fluctuate based on supply and demand within certain locations (often based on the different blends that different states or regions require). bond traders don’t impact the price of gas.
and if you think that oil companies would deliberately park oil and tankers off the coast of the US in order to somehow drive up interest rates, you missed elementary finance and economics. any increase in base interest rates increases the cost of capital/hurdle rate for the oil company just like it does everybody else. companies do everything in their power to minimize their blended cost of capital, not increase it.
you said: “Oil prices were getting out of hand and the Fed felt that raising interest rates would keep demand under control, therefore, bonds fell in price raising the yield (interest rate) on bonds.”
the fed raised rates back in the late 70’s to curb demand, yes, but more importantly to curb the inflation that the fed believed would come with demand. furthermore, by your own quote it is clear that the oil companies don’t make monetary policy decisions. the fed does.
the point is: oil companies don’t drive the cycle, jackie. we, as consumers, do.
By Chilao
August 10, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
yeah, selective memory Ollie North “I have no recollection of that event/conversation/action”(and an honorable Marine? actually that is one of the first things a Marine IS taught: “But can you prove my action in a court of law?”…I learned that FROM Marines)
selective history remembrance as well, I guess, for many.
Yes, Kimberly, I remember the Contra-Gate. Was surprised someone would actually ask “What pardons?”. but then so many ARE misinformed….
oh, back to picking produce, so the gringo urbanites can have produce in their supermarkets….LMAO
By Archie
August 10, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Ken I don’t have a problem with you. I did not mention anything about government paying for healthcare but I guess you read my posts from previous months. Anyway we are the government and we can’t control anyone’s behavior but we can react to it. It doesn’t benefit me that my republican associate has no health insurance because his lack of funds will eventually be passed on to me and I do have health insurance. If people can get past this fixation about the “government”, they would understand the government is us. The government is not some alien entity that issues laws and I think it’s time to decide what do we want centralized. The healthcare system ain’t working. I did not blame Bush for 9/11 because there was so many times when it could have been prevented by a guy doing his job at the airports. Bush did not cause 9/11. President Bush did not cause 9/11 and it’s nonsense to suggest he did but Bush should be called out on this Iraq war and to some extent these gas prices. Bush has not issued an executive order to freeze gas prices. Gas prices went up at the start of the Iraq war. That’s when gas prices were getting out of hand and that’s when these oil companies reaped 180% profit as Lyrazel cited yesterday.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Taboga, What’s wrong with multiculturalism?
Nothing. Neither with jet-skiing. But what do either have to do with an academic education?
Should the students go to school learning about the wonderful white men in this country, and nothing about anybody else?
No, they should go to school to learn to read, write and the fundamentals of mathematics. Novel idea - but extraordinarily effective.
Should they grow up believing that nothing else exists other than the white culture?
I am not concerned about how they “grow up”. And neither should the schools be.
As for the Christian bashing, my friend told me that one of the objectives in their curriculum is: The student must demonstrate an understanding of the lack of validity in Christianity.
And there’s supposed to be something surprising about that?
By Chilao
August 10, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Jack - my dad, who I alledgedly ‘smeared’, was an unarmed medic on Okinawa during WWII…and guess what? if he were still alive, he would be thoroughly APPALLED over our current Middle East activity, as well as the AMERICAN OWNS THE WORLD CAUSE WE HAVE BIG GUNS mentality that seems to be pretty prevalent….
By donya
August 10, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
It’s been a long time since I’ve read this section of the AJC — simply because I actually like to hear both sides of the story communicated in an intellectual, non-biased fashion — and once again, Diane did not come through. The first thing I thought after reading Shaunti’s piece, was that Diane’s not going to like it, as usual, and simply because the bill is being proposed by the Bush Administration. And she did not let me down! The very first paragraph puts down not only W, but Papa too. And the rest of the article doesn’t dissapoint either. Instead of trying to solve the problems we have, she simply wants to control the types of cars we’re able to drive. Typical democrat: the American people are too stupid to figure this out, so we have to control them and take away some of their liberties since we can’t trust them to behave like adults. They’re destroying their air, so we’ve got to take away their big toys. Diane, grow up.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 10, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Kimberly-Nice synopsis of the Iran-Contra scandal. Led me to look at some of the pardons that were given; many of those folks were hired on by Bush II, perhaps as reward. Negroponte is an example. Those pardoned were convicted criminals and traitors.
Another interesting thing about that era was the emergence of neocons like Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, and the support of Israel. Apparently the goal was to support democracy in the Middle East.
What’s unclear to me, and I plan to research this at some point, is how the Bushes and their Saudi oil connections flourished economically while politically supporting the neocons and Israel. Can anyone break this down for me? I ask this sincerely.
By Dakotawoman
August 10, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
I find that hard to believe; “that a student must demonstrate an understanding of the lack of validity in Xianity.” Couldn’t have happened in the south. That teacher wouldn’t have a job if it did.
By kimberly
August 10, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Sandy/S: The whole neocon-Israel thing is confusing to me too. I think more research is warranted, since it seems to be an ever-present factor in our foreign policy, and contradictions in rhetoric abound. But if I had to guess, I’d think it has something to do with premise that it is the chaos and “instability” in the middle east that “justifies” our presence, money, and continued intervention there. I mean, they can’t come out and say, “It’s all about the OIL, stoooopid!” They took power denying that and harping on the “values” garbage that they dispute daily with their actions. But if there WERE stabilitly over there, it would be harder to justify barging in to steal the oil. But that’s an oversimplification, I’m sure.
By kali
August 10, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
This is for the wonderful women on this forum: It was written by Andy Rooney.
“As I grow in age, I value women who are over 30 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why: A woman over 30 will never wake you in the middle of the night to ask, “What are you thinking?” She doesn’t care what you think. If a woman over 30 doesn’t want to watch the game, she doesn’t sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do. And, it’s usually something more interesting. A woman over 30 knows herself well enough to be assured in who she is, what she is, what she wants and from whom. Few women past the age of 30 give a damn what you might think about her or what she’s doing. Women over 30 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won’t hesitate to shoot you, if they think they can get away with it. Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it’s like to be unappreciated. A woman over 30 has the self-assurance to introduce you to her women friends. A younger woman with a man will often ignore even her best friend because she doesn’t trust the guy with other women. Women over 30 couldn’t care less if you’re attracted to her friends because she knows her friends won’t betray her. Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 30. They always know. A woman over 30 looks good wearing bright red lipstick. This is not true of younger women. Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 30 is far sexier than her younger counterpart. Older women are forthright and honest. They’ll tell you right off if you are a jerk if you are acting like one! You don’t ever have to wonder where you stand with her. Yes, we praise women over 30 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed hot woman of 30+, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year-old waitress. Ladies, I apologize. For all those men who say, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Here’s an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage, why? Because women realize it’s not worth buying an entire Pig, just to get a little sausage.”
By taboga
August 10, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
What’s unclear to me, and I plan to research this at some point, is how the Bushes and their Saudi oil connections flourished economically while politically supporting the neocons and Israel. Can anyone break this down for me? I ask this sincerely.
I will be happy to. A “Saudi oil connection” is one of those vague terms that is used by Leftists who want to imply a conspiracy of sorts - that involves Republicans.
When they have no such proof or evidence of anything - they throw out those senseless kind of phrases.
Then all they have to do is repeat it often enough for the willing rubes to pick up on it.
And if you own any number of mutual funds - it is highly likely that you have a “Saudi oil connection” as well.
Glad to be of help.
By joe
August 10, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
What does studying other people in other countries with different cultures have to do with education? Toe-booger you just might be the biggest imbecile ever on this blog!
By Marie
August 10, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
I guess that I am the only one picking up on the sarcasm from Wesley. Taboga, in all of his splendid foolishness, said that school teaches students to be unchristian.
As for reading, what should the students be reading Toboga?
I do appreciate you not caring about how the children grow up. So when one of them, a doctor perhaps, misdiagnoses you, don’t try to send a lawsuit their way. You didn’t care about them, why should they give a flip about you?
By lozen
August 10, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Toe-booger, (I love that image!), obviously you only learned to read, write and do arithmetic when you went to school. I was fortunate enough to learn a little about economics, astronomy, geography, history, political science, health, and any number of other useful, interesting subjects that contribute to a well-rounded education. I even had a few art classes (the teachers paid for supplies themselves and taught although that wasn’t their specialty). I thank them for that. There’s a whole lot of life not covered by readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic! However, I understand that you don’t know that.
By Jack
August 10, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - I did not grow a bean stalk and go meet the good giant Ronnie. I am not a Reagan fan. The Republicans like the Democrats treat us like we are completely stupid. They worship Reagan and state that he didn’t raise taxes. No he didn’t raise taxes, he took the deduction for interest on credit cards, car loans etc., thereby screwing the entire middle class. To them we are sheeple. I have tried to grow veggies in my yard but I don’t get enough sunlight under this bridge.
By lozen
August 10, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Thank you mother mary for the Jeffers poem. I copied it and will keep it! I’ve never read his poetry; now I will. Thank you kali for the andy rooney piece. I heard it when he did it on 60 Minutes and enjoyed it so much. Now I have a copy of it! Thank you kimberly for your memory, knowledge and questions. You are a very intelligent woman. And always thanks to sandy for your awareness and wisdom. And Lyrazel, you too!
By kimberly
August 10, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Jack, gotta agree with you there. Sadly, the REAL fault for our messes lies with the voters.. the sheeple… the good hardworking Americans who don’t have enough energy at the end of the day to pay attention to what the government is doing in “their” name. They’d much rather pick a side based on the sound bite they like best, or the guy their preacher says is a good Krisschen, or the one they’d most like to have a beer with, even if that person is a currently-dry alcoholic with a record of disappearing. Asking questions is too hard. Reading news from a variety of sources is too hard. Much easier to critique the outfits on American Idol, and diss the one with the weird nose or the large backside. BAA-AAA-AAA!
By Jack
August 10, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Don’t forget Tony’s little poem about those unwilling to feed the fire. That was good too.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 10, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
My energy policy is that I’ll stick to real dialogue rather than having to re-invent the wheel for you, Taboga…
Kimberly, the chaos-instability theory makes sense, seeing the money that can be apportioned for ill-conceived operations such as wars on drugs and terrorism, and justify our interference, occupation, weapons build-up, and disastrous alliances in the name of democracy.
As for 9/11, I watched C-span for the first time recently, where an expert in intelligence and spying said that with every new president we have a lapse in intelligence, with passing the baton, so to speak. He said that this is the reason that Congress members, assumably members of the Intelligence Committee, receive intelligence briefings. He says thus it is unfair to completely blame the Bush administration for not acting to prevent 9/11 and that Congress should accept some of the responsbility, despite the fact that they could not have acted. I thought this was interesting…
By taboga
August 10, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Yeah, that “well-rounded” education has us number 49 of 49 in Math and Science now.
And is was so touching to hear how your teachers paid for your art supplies out of their own pocket.
Isn’t that so thoughtful and caring - I think I’m going need a Kleenex…
By taboga
August 10, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
“How the hell did they get in this country?” -John Rocker, Dec. 1999.
By joe
August 10, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Toe-booger with a toe up your nose picking a big one ..ha, ha, ha. That is one more image alright. You most definitely need a kleenex. You’re probably a flicker though! One of my high school science teachers said “girls don’t understand science and it’s a waste of my time to try to teach girls.” I felt bad for my twin sister who was in that class. She got upset and for good reason; she did better than I did in science and math! It was one of the things that got us started questioning what we were learning about the difference between girls and boys. Toe booger would have said, “Rah, rah teach. You shore is right!”
By Jack
August 10, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
The Democrats probably would have done better with Edwards. He is a cutie according to my sources and would have gotten more votes than Mr. Heinz.
By joe
August 10, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
And then he would have scratched his tiny, little…. well you know. And spit his tobaccy juice out the winder.
By joe
August 10, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Toe booger’s IQ test is now official. He made 85!
By taboga
August 10, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Joe,
I really don’t know what to make of your latest off-point ramblings, but I feel bad for your twin sister as well…
By Tim
August 10, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
what exactly is a toe booger? is that the stuff people get between their toes sometimes when they take their socks off?
By taboga
August 10, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Tim,
Those of us who shower regularly - don’t have anything growing between our toes.
By Jack
August 10, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Thats toe jam.
By joe
August 10, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Toe booger, it really, really surprises me that you can’t understand!
By Jackie
August 10, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Yesterday, you stated that the reason for the Iran hostage rescue failure was the sand and not that of the young marine helicopter pilot. I know that your facts are wrong; the helicopter crashed into one of the two C-130 transports and the commanders on the ground made the call to abort the mission because they did not have enough room in the remaining plane to transport all the hostages. As for Mr. Reagan, he made a deal with the Iranians to release the hostages on the day the election. I know Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, Mr. Weinberger, Mr. Baker, Mr. Cheyney, Mr. North, Mr. Powell and Mr. Abrams were deeply involved and Mr. Weinber and Mr. Abrams were given pardons by Mr. Bush. Remember Iran-Contra?????????
By joe
August 10, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
Too bad some of us can’t shower out our heads! Like Toe-booger…
By Jack
August 10, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Jackie, you may be right but I don’t buy it.
By Tim
August 10, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
oh ok… I guess I should try that showering regularly thing… bi-weekly pedicures also help one not get toe jam or toe boogers (whatever name you prefer)
By taboga
August 10, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Joe,
Can you take some friendly advice?
You need to stop the attempt at humor. It’s not your strong suit either.
By DB
August 10, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Taboga: Did you not get enough attention at home as a kid? Did you not pay attention in school? Since when do only leftists come up with fuel efficient cars? They are here! They’re just not being used enough because everyone has to have a big SUV that commands respect and compensates for the lack of many other traits(driving skills). And so are alternative fuels, it’s just rambling idiots that prevent them from having a chance in the market. Well, the good thing is that the conservative plan only resulted in the skyrocketing of gas prices, so the SUV’s will be getting more efficient and less appealing simply due to economic reasons. My non-hybrid car gets 37 miles per gallon. Now if your SUV(which I’m sure you drive) gets even close to that, I would be surprised. And you know what, my car will stay right with your SUV, if not beat it, from a traffic light all the way to 127 mph. I can see pretty well, and I won’t roll the next time I try to avoid a deer or a moron in an SUV that didn’t see me and pulled in front of me. So your horsepower needs are quite satisfied, and so are many other needs. Because of buying this car as opposed to driving my old SUV, I now spend one-third of a car payment, only $20 per week in gas(as compared to $75), and I’m not contributing as much to global warming(and the increasing insurance rates of Floridians due to the latest pattern of hurricanes). The only thing that suffers is your ego. If the EPA were allowed to require just 5%(very easy with same horsepower) more efficiency out of SUV’s alone, we could survive without the 40% of oil we get from the entire Middle East. That would make “your war” totally unnecessary because no Middle Eastern countries would have the wealth they do. But no, the oil lobbyists want automakers to make sure they suck down the gas. So, Taboga, who are the idiots?
Also, on the topic of alternative fuels. They, too are already here. Biodiesel is already making serious progress because it’s getting cheaper(and with algae) it is possible to sustain all our driving habits within the next 10 years(and definitely the shipping and commercial industry). Also, since 1994, Ford, GM, and Dodge have been quietly producing flex fuel vehicles because some lady in the research lab created a strain of yeast that can produce whopping amounts of ethanol, which will be the fuel of the near future. Also, using biodiesel and ethanol decreases global warming because they don’t contribute a net amount of CO2 into the atmosphere because the carbon came from plants). And ethanol also significantly decreases smog and MTBE in our drinking water. Metro Atlanta and many other cities have already(last year) required ethanol mixed into gasoline(E85 or E90), and as the agricultural lobbyists make way, you’re going to see ethanol becoming a major factor in the years to come. Agricultural byproducts and new yeasts makes ethanol at something like 54 cents a gallon. Now tell me the big oil companies don’t want to charge $2 per gallon and mix half of it with cheap alcohol and make more profit while at the same time getting a great environmental rep.
By the way, I’m a right-leaning moderate, so there are non-liberals that realize there are better solutions to our problems than people like you propose.
For all of you that argue against Taboga, just get a more efficient car and drive less to create the market conditions where oil the demand for oil is less. The consumer has the power. The government will not help(at least this administration). You don’t have to buy a hybrid. Just buy a Corolla(40 mpg), Sentra(35 mpg), Civic(38 mpg). Hybrid technology is good in SUV’s and larger cars to bring them to the 30’s. There’s going to be a huge environmental problem in batteries if they do end up being a huge part of the market.
By simon
August 10, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Jack,
As a Air Traffic Controller serving aboard USS Nimitz from which the H-53’s were launched, you can believe Jackie. She has the facts correct as they happened, at least with the aborted rescue mission.
By Thoughts
August 10, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Taboga is really a closet masochist who enjoys all this verbal abuse….probably down at the restroom right now wink wink.
By Jackie
August 10, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Jack,
What you seem to be saying is that the facts in this matter is half-true. Kimberly’s post about the people not getting involved in the political process and voting out the scoundrels that do not work in our best intrest is what you seem to be implying; the facts are the facts, but you do not believe them.
The politicians speak out of both sides of mouths, yet, those that we like are expouse to be “it”, will win our votes regardless of how they vote to protect our best intrest. Are we not the board members of their political corporations?
By Thoughts
August 10, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
and I am sure we all appreciate Taboga being the speak-piece for conservatism
Tell the world: want to know a true conservative?, go to the woman-to-woman blog at ajc, read that poster Taboga.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
DB,
That was a classic! Thanks.
By Jack
August 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Jackie, I am convinced that the only thing that will fix the current system is revolution. Too many of our citizens are “sheeple” and it won’t happen. A joke that is true: How do you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving. I really don’t remember a screem of outrage from the left about the “deal” Ronnie made to free the hostages. I won’t argue about it because I haven’t done any research on it. Water under the bridge.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Thoughts,
Yes, get them all out here. Under one condition though:
That AJC doesn’t charge me for all this entertainment!
Oh, and could you guys possibly get some wit out here - Joe has given it a shot, but hey, come on…
By Jack
August 10, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
What does a man do standing up, a woman doing sitting down, and a dog do on three legs?
Shake Hands.
By Jackie
August 10, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Jack,
The scream about Ronald Reagan and his illegal actions in the Iran-Contra affair are legendary. This man traded military spare parts to the Iranian government of Ayatolla Khomeni was in direct violation of the law. It appears that everyone was so upset with Jimmy Carter and believed that he did not work in the best interest of the country, the voters allowed Ronald Reagan to continue to tell the big lie. This propoganda method is still used today; lie, lie, lie and eventually the public will begin to believe it. Sounds familiar!
By gobacktowork
August 10, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
You are all a bunch of losers…if you are doing all this posting at your job you should be fired and if you are at home you need to go out and get a life. Shaunti and Diane need to move onto other things…this blog sucks now.
By Jack
August 10, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Baaaabaaaaa,baaaa.
By Jack
August 10, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Gobacktowork you’re fired. Go get a life. This blog is just fine without you. Don’t go away mad, just go away.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
What if we are working for ourselves at home?
By Jack
August 10, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Taboga, according to gobacktowork, you need to fire yourself and then get a life. You do a good job of getting under blogger’s skin. If you trashed Christians, I would think you were Norman.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
No Jack, I don’t get under anyone’s skin - I frustrate them.
By Gregory
August 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Working for yourself is a fancy way of saying you’re lazy.
By Tommy Beall
August 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
American right-wingers are just plain stupid…period.
By joe
August 10, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
I beg to differ Jack. Norman did like to stir the pot on this blog but he was an educated man. But remember: Norman - intelligent. Tabooger - dropped out of grammar school. They tried to make him take a civics class and he said, “Dern, Ahm hear to learn readin’ and writin’and some math. I don’t need no culture from you all. It ain’t yer job to teach me anythin’ else, you dern communists!”
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Gregory,
Working for someone else is a fancy way of saying you’re stupid.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
Tommy,
Did you think that up all by yourself? And since it is the American right-wingers that are just plain stupid - what about the others?
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
Joe,
I am beginning to feel embarrassed for you.
By mark
August 10, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
I just need to ask the religious folks on here a question. I know a couple who live together and are raising five kids together and they’re not married. But they used to be married. Then they divorced and in just a few months she met another guy and married him a few weeks later. So she gets pregnant with the 2nd man and then decides she doesn’t want to be married to him. Pretty soon she and her ex were living together again and now they’re raising his kids from his first marriage, their kids from their marriage and her kid from her second marriage. They say their marriage was the real one, and they are still married in the eyes of god and don’t need to get married again. I can see their argument in a way but then again it’s confusing because marriage is a legal thing but it’s also a religious thing. What do you think? Are they living in sin or are they still married?
By DB
August 10, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
Taboga: No, you’re a classic. Ignorance is becoming a virtue.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Taboga: No, you’re a classic. Ignorance is becoming a virtue.
No, it has become a requirement. And I dare say - you are in no danger of rocking the boat!
By taboga
August 10, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
You are all a bunch of commies and you should be lined up against a wall and shot. You think you’re so smart. Smarty pants, smarty pants just because you are more educated than me. It ain’t school learning from a bunch of communists that makes you smart, you reds. I hate your guts you intellickuals.
By joe
August 10, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Oh boy, Toe Booger is going off the deep end now! It’s a good day to sign off the AJC Woman to Woman!
By Jack
August 10, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Good one Mark. Depends. I think if you love someone enough to make a baby, you should get married. But that is me. What is in your heart is what really counts.
By taboga
August 10, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Who is the little kid posting under my name?
By DB
August 10, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Taboga: You promote such intelligent conversation on this blog! You lefties, righties, etc. You are full of one-liners that do nothing more than impede progress. You’re like the kid in high school who loves that negative attention and refuses to listen to anyone. I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you just get off the computer and go sign up for the military and put your money where your mouth is?
By lozen
August 10, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
So there, you damn intellickuals!
By DB
August 10, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this
I vote for everyone to ignore taboga. He’s just waiting for each post like a dog waiting for a treat. He’s gone too far in making the blog nothing more than mosh pit. Let’s try to learn something and keep conversation moving productively.
By Stephen
August 11, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
This bill has some good and bad. The real problem is a lack of national vision and leadership on energy going back decades. There’s still very little straight talk on this issue. Oil is an outdated technology and we’ve allowed it to become our achilles heel. For too long it’s been characterized as an environmental issue when it’s really about national security and the underpinnings of our economy. Someday historians will wonder, what were they thinking? I think people would rally around a president who said, folks, imported oil is the real time bomb under our society and we’ve got to get off it and it won’t be easy or painless. That means a Manhattan Project to find alternatives, preferably clean and renewable ones so our great grandchildren won’t be going to war for energy resources. Meantime, however, we’re going to have to do some drilling in Alaska and elsewhere to get us through this time, and we’re going to have keep an open mind about nuclear power (which France uses extensively) being part of the solution. I think people on both sides could understand and support that if they felt it was part of a longrange vision that would get us to a better place.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this
Let’s try to learn something and keep conversation moving productively.
Ok DB, let’s get “productive” (hardly can write that with a straight face):
Republicans are sinister beings who want to destroy the planet so that they can put more money into the pockets of their rich buddies. 45 million don’t have healthcare and Democrats can’t afford a voter ID because Republicans need another scheme in order to steal another election!
Come on people - wake up! Dick Cheney and his cronies at Halliburton think they own the world! I know a friend of mine that works full time and does not have health care! That’s because George Bush and Wal-Mart want to put Americans out of work while they pollute the air and water like “Ronnie Ray-Gun” did!
We greedy and selfish Americans are the cause of all the problems in the world. We drive our SUV’s around while others in the world are going to bed at hungry at night. That’s how Hitler got started!
…I am now ready to engage in some “productive” and intellectual dialogue.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this
Stephen,
That sounds great. Won’t happen though.
You can’t take the oil issue away from the anti-american Leftists. Oil represents capitalism and it is capitalism that they want to defeat. Even as many of them don’t know it - they are trying to defeat it.
If a wand waved tomorrow made salt water our power source, the first time someone made a nickel profit from it - the Left would be in a tizzy.
The simple truth is, that the overwhelming vast majority of people haven’t a clue about oil usage, shortage, how much is out there, what progress is being made for additional resources, etc. - and they couldn’t care less.
What many do care about however, is having any issue; real or perceived, that they can hang their “doom and gloom” hat on so as to blame Americans and our capitalist way of life, for it. They were taught to do this.
None of this has anything to do with oil.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 11, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this
The Energy Bill’s Gift to Terrorists E-Mail This Printer-Friendly By ALAN J. KUPERMAN Published: August 11, 2005 Austin, Tex.
AN obscure provision of the energy bill signed into law this week by President George W. Bush demonstrates how, even in this era of heightened concern about terrorism, narrow commercial considerations can trump national security at the behest of one senator.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
David Suter
Forum: Op-Ed Contributors Despite widespread opposition - from the Bush administration, a majority of the Senate, leaders of the House Energy Committee, and nuclear regulators from the five preceding presidential administrations - Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and chairman of the Energy Committee, included an amendment that guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium, the same material used in the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
If terrorists obtained enough such uranium they could fashion a full-fledged nuclear weapon, not merely a “dirty bomb” that would scatter radioactive waste. As the late Manhattan Project physicist Luis Alvarez noted in his memoirs: “With modern weapons-grade uranium, the background neutron rate is so low that terrorists, if they had such material, would have a good chance of setting off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material onto the other half… . Even a high school kid could make a bomb in short order.”
The new law increases the likelihood of that nightmare scenario by allowing exports of bomb-grade uranium to foreign companies to rise to more than 100 pounds annually, thereby multiplying the odds that terrorists could steal enough for a bomb while the uranium is in transit to, or in storage at, foreign facilities.
Why would Senator Domenici favor increasing exports of bomb-grade uranium that could lead to the perfect terrorist weapon? One reason may be that lobbyists claimed that foreign pharmaceutical companies need this type of uranium to produce medical isotopes that are re-imported to diagnose and treat thousands of American patients in the absence of a domestic producer. But in reality, these vital isotopes can be produced just as well with low-enriched uranium, which is not bomb-grade, as facilities in Argentina and Australia already do.
The actual driving factor is money. Firms that produce isotopes in Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands for export to the United States want to avoid the expense and inconvenience of converting their production processes to use the safer uranium. But American law had barred export of bomb-grade uranium to them, except on an interim basis if they were in the process of converting to the safer alternative. Rather than responsibly complying with this antiterrorism statute, the foreign producers cynically tried to eliminate it - and succeeded, thanks to Senator Domenici’s intervention.
Although President Bush signed the energy bill under the pressure of spiraling gas prices, his Energy Department strongly opposed lifting the export restrictions. Its top official for nuclear nonproliferation, Paul M. Longsworth, warned last month that the provision “may undermine support of the U.S. highly enriched uranium minimization policy and nuclear export control system.”
The legislation also prompted a bipartisan group of scientists, policy specialists (including myself) and former officials responsible for various aspects of nuclear security under every president since Gerald Ford to send a letter to Senator Domenici pleading with him not “to weaken a major provision of the U.S. nonproliferation law that makes it more difficult for terrorists to obtain material capable of producing a nuclear bomb.”
The ill-advised amendment actually failed the only vote ever held specifically on it by either house of Congress, in the Senate on June 23, 2005, by 52-46. The House of Representatives had slipped the provision into the energy bill without a vote, but once its ramifications became clear, both the House Energy Committee’s chairman, Republican Joe Barton from Texas, and its ranking Democrat, John Dingell from Michigan, came to oppose it. They offered Senator Domenici a compromise to neuter the provision in deference to the Senate’s vote against it.
This is where Mr. Domenici abused his power as Senate committee chair. He successfully pushed all of the Republicans he appointed to the House-Senate conference on the bill to vote for his provision - against the expressed will of the Senate. He then rejected the House’s offer to eliminate the provision, thereby strong-arming the provision into law over the bipartisan opposition of executive and legislative branch officials.
Ironically, Mr. Domenici’s law also undermines a company in his own state that promised an innovative solution to the whole problem. Albuquerque-based TCI Medical had been trying to raise funds to start producing isotopes domestically using the safer low-enriched uranium - which would enable the United States to halt bomb-grade exports to foreign producers and thereby eliminate the risk of terrorist interception. But because the new law bolsters foreign competitors by assuring them a steady supply of bomb-grade uranium, venture capitalists are less likely to fund the domestic start-up.
Perhaps Senator Domenici was misinformed and didn’t realize that previous statutes enabled both the production of medical isotopes and the phasing out of bomb-grade exports, that the Bush administration opposed his provision on national-security grounds, and that his law would hinder a local company’s efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear terror. But now that the facts are on the table, there is no excuse. Congress and the White House should rectify this grievous error - before it is too late.
Alan J. Kuperman is an assistant professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and a senior policy analyst for the Nuclear Control Institute.
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
Yep, it’s all about opposing capitalism and profit-generating business, all right. That’s why so many of us “leftists” are solidly entrenched in the capitalist marketplace as workers, bosses, and entrepreneurs.
That’s why we’ve lined up to oppose ANY type of energy source whatsoever, including solar and wind—because they can be used to generate the evil profits. (rolling eyes)
Sometimes you can just SEE taboga getting dumber, can’t you? What a silly little whiner he is.
By Vince
August 11, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
I’ve seen the light. Bin Laden is actually from Iraq and is living there. Iraq has nasty weapons aimed at the USA, and I hope our troops can find them soon. With 1800+ of our people dead, and billions of dollars spent, we not only have to find those bombs, but should break them apart and sell the parts to China. Just as we did with the WTC parts, because why investigate the scrap metal right after the biggest crime against our country? That’s stupid, right? Just sell the scrap metal to China before an independent investigation can take place. Oh, did you guys see the plane crash footage from last week. That jet fuel burned black, but that’s because there was no office furniture on that plane. (While there was office furniture in the WTC, that really doesn’t count because it was different from the furniture at the Pentagon) I’ve seen more light. Bush is about to become the most vacationing president in the history of the USA. Beating out Reagan’s record in only five years! Awesome! Who really cares about the war on terror and the high price of gas or our people being killed in Iraq? Vacation man, that’s the key.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
Brian,
I thought you were advising everyone else to stop replying to my posts?
Just the Liberal in you right - want to tell everyone else what to do but not include yourself…?
By Lyrazel
August 11, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
Anyone who says posters to a blog need to be lined up and shot deserves an inquiry made by AJC. Many of the people who contribute to this forum have quite interesting opinions, I enjoy how I disagree/agree with many. This freedom of speech America provides us comes with responsibility to govern ourselves. I will be abstaining from commenting on the messages of this taboga individual—that way I can waste less time reading scurrilous balderdash and concentrate on irrelevant tirades like mine. ;-) Join me. Thanks…enjoy.
Mark…long underwear always had a back flap to provide the user an easy escape. Making any relationship a legal only complicates the fast escape route. Many insurance companies do not recognize live-in partners, nor will SSI provide benefits for the unmarried spouse if their actual union was less than 10 years regardless if they were living together. Wills, as well as living wills also have to be modified to account for this couple and from your post I doubt either has actually delved into the potential consequences of terminal illness or death of the partner. God is more forgiving than our government.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Just as we did with the WTC parts, because why investigate the scrap metal right after the biggest crime against our country?
There you have it. 9/11 was supposedly a: Crime.
By Chilao
August 11, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
I need advice: The National Geographic I mentioned earlier(but the glacier pics were in Smithsonian) has as its cover story all about sources of Power and what is upcoming, especially technology. Have not read yet, so do not know if it takes that position that ALL resources are NOT infinite and that EVERYTHING has a saturation point. (air, for example).
Should I NOT read the article? After all, it might be leftist propoganda. Not sure where NGS is considered in there…
and my saturation point for this blog is about two days, so see ya next week.
By blablabla
August 11, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
Brian: Why do you think “leftists” oppose the construction of nuclear power plants so much? Other industrialized countries (France comes to mind) have been building and utilizing more nuclear power over the last few decades while we have drastically reduced investment in nuclear power and still rely heavily on fossil fuels for power.
I will tell you that from where i sit, it is very frustrating to see those on the left complain about the environmental impact of coal and the foreign dependency on oil and then do everything possible to obstruct any kind of nuclear power construction - the only other source of energy that we have the technology (today) to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
I thought you rubes might enjoy the piece below concerning that nitwit woman protesting in Crawford, Tx:
the nature of Cindy’s vigil. Or maybe the nature of vigil of any kind. She is tapping into a nerve, stirring long pent-up emotions. She is a catalyst. I would expect that a strong response to Cindy’s effort would be reflected here on DU and so it is. People we know (either in reality or from the net) are actually there in Crawford. We can get UNfiltered reports and not have to depend on the whims of MSM for slanted crumbs. Do you realize how empowering that is? Do you realize that this is a galvanizing moment for those who have been suffering (really suffering) during the current black-hearted regime?
Feel free to post other stuff, as of course we need to know what else is going on, and there’s so much to keep up with. But in the week that this important move—the pawns coming within the King’s range while he remains sequestered in his lair —this heroic move was made by someone VISIBLY standing up for The People. So I think you might give this moment its due. Your statement is fair enough. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to it.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel,
You might notice that it was not me who made that post yesterday, it simply another childish Liberal who wanted to post under my name.
I am used to that - nothing new for you children.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Bush cares not for he cannot be the Prez again.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
I forgot to say thank God for term limits.
By Vince
August 11, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
I have seen the light. Anyone who has a child killed during a war is a nitwit.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this
Vince,
Not actually. But there is a small chance, that anyone who demands that the President of the United States apologize to them for “killing their son” - would qualify in all respects as nothing more than a bonafide “nitwit”.
See how that differs slightly from: “Anyone who has a child killed during a war is a nitwit.”
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 11, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Blablabla, I suspect that if what you say is true, that the Left is obstructing nuclear power plant construction, the Left is concerned about how these plants and the waste they produce will be regulated. If, as evidenced in this current administration, environmental policies are flouted and rolled back, how can we trust those in charge, i.e. the lobbyists and Big Nukes (instead of Big Oil) to do the right thing to protect not only the locals where the plants will be built, but the entire world from fallout or renegade waste sent to places who want nuclear bombs. If Kuperman’s article above is any reflection, we all have a lot to worry about, left, right and everything in between.
If history is any indication, (remember how Saddam was our buddy, shaking hands with Rumsfeld, we armed him to fight against the Soviets during the Cold War?) we may be supplying undemocratic regimes with the raw materials to make bombs today, which may be used against us tomorrow.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that Big Oil isn’t thwarting the creation of nuclear power plants? (Seriously—)
By DB
August 11, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
The rate in life expectancy increase in the U.S. is actually slowing down and predicted to plateau and then fall in the next 50 years due to obesity, cancer(demographics and carcinogens), and heart disease. Fact: Air pollution inceases asthma rates, lung cancer rates, heart attack rates, and pulmonary infection rates. And it decreases the growth of lungs during childhood causing lower lung capacity later in life.
There’s a huge opportunity from the increasing technology extracting oil from the oil sands in Canada at less than $15 per barrel, and there’s more than enough oil there, not to mention our own Rockies. But fossil oil adds carbon dioxide(greenhouse) gases to atmosphere when bio-fuels don’t. Brazil went from depending on foreign oil to having an ethanol economy back to oil. The difference is their government fully supported the changes. And so did GM, Ford, etc. by making them the cars. The point is that we could do the same. The average American household uses far more energy than one in any other country. There would be much less carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, and smog would be much less also. Also, keep in mind that companies like BP, Texaco/Chevron, and General Electric are starting to invest immensely in alternative sources of energy. It’s only a matter of time.
Capitalism must be both supported and regulated by government in the best interests of the people, not in the best interest of capitalism. There’s no reason our government shouldn’t include commercial trucks’s, pickups, and SUV’s and require higher mileage. It is criminal to deregulate SUV’s when they are now almost equal in number as cars. Let’s take the Jeep Liberty Diesel and the VW Touareg Diesel(discontinued) for example. The Liberty gets 32 mpg with equivalent horsepower and much more torque. The Touareg is a 310HP ROCKET that gets 24 miles to the gallon. There is no reason the SUV-lovers shouldn’t be willing to use diesel. Clean diesels are the future(both engineering and fuels like GTL and Biodiesel), and diesel is much more efficient(and contains 40% more energy per volume than gasoline) and contributes less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Also, mileage requirements and biofuels should be even more prevalent in commercial transportation(diesel) markets.
As for the ethanol question. Fuel ethanol is, for the most part, exactly the same as the ethanol in Vodka, but the fuels are “denatured” or made undrinkable by either gasoline or other fuels(methanol) so the whinos and minors don’t just go to the local gas station to fill up the “Big Gulp” containers.
Lefties and Righties only define the middle. They both have some good points, but they’re both too stubborn to accept reality. What we need are practical solutions to actually solve problems, and that takes unbiased thinking. We need just the right amount of government regulation(not too much or too little), and conflicts of interest must be minimized.
As a world power, the U.S. is negligent in promoting energy conservation and promoting renewable sources of energy. Anyone should be able to see, with the ever-increasing population, that whatever country first converts to renewable sources of energy will be the next world power. If you can’t see that, you’re in denial.
Has anyone noticed the recent skyrocketing profits of companies like Exxon, Texaco, and other oil companies?
By taboga
August 11, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Stephen,
You still out there? Look at Sandy’s lastest post — “Big Oil” (which there’s no such thing) is now conspiring against the building of nuclear plants!
By Ken
August 11, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Brian… I think this BLOG’s latest antagonist meant the purest form of capitalism, the one where the individual feels no responsibility to the whole.
Very few in this country believe in that form of society any longer. We have become conditioned ever since Roosevelt bartered ‘The New Deal’ that we are responsible for the least advantaged in our society. That in and of itself is a wonderful thing, but we must question at what point the government should no longer be involved with this philanthropy.
Some folks on the BLOG believe the government should not be involved at all (we know who that is). some folks believe the government should only be involved at the most basic of levels (like myself). Others believe that the government should run everything through one way, shape or form (most of the folks).
The more the goverment gets involved, the more it looks like socialism/communism. We unfortunately are moving to a society where people want the government to provide much but restrict nothing. That is unrealistic.
By Gregory
August 11, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Taboga—At least the mother protesting at Bush’s ranch has a reason to be angry. What’s your excuse for being a blithering nitwit? If you love the Fuhrer so much, then why don’t you sign up to fight in Iraq? You’re a typical stupid, lazy, vote from the gut Republican. You wouldn’t put your neck on the line to make this country safe. So why would you spit in the face of someone who sacrificed their son so that you can be free to wallow in your own ignorance? I bet you don’t even scratch yourself without first consulting Fox News.
By DB
August 11, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Promoting nuclear power is a tough call. It does pose benefits, but it can come back and bite you harder than one can imagine. Also, keep in mind that whenever uranium enrichment takes place in a country, it increases the probability of breeder reactors and weapon production. And if you promote this in one country and then ask other countries not to use nuclear as a source of energy, there will be problems. Countries like China and India come to mind, countries whom we won’t be able to push and shove in the near future. Then the hate-filled countries will follow suit. If you allow them to use nuclear energy, they can produce plutonium themselves. Personally, I’d rather keep making coal cleaner while refining other renewable sources or coming up with something better than to open a serious can of worms with nuclear power. Also, there’s a huge risk with nuclear waste. Most waste is still onsite at most reactors because there’s no place to send it. The Yucca mountain project isn’t all that great, especially when it’s time to transport all the waste there increasing the risk of accidents or attacks at least tenfold.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
The rate in life expectancy increase in the U.S. is actually slowing down and predicted to plateau and then fall in the next 50 years due to obesity, cancer(demographics and carcinogens), and heart disease.
A person might conclude that life-expectancy will “plateau” at some point - we are not going to live forever!
Fact: Air pollution inceases asthma rates, lung cancer rates, heart attack rates, and pulmonary infection rates. And it decreases the growth of lungs during childhood causing lower lung capacity later in life
Fact: No it doesn’t.
Yet another - “50 year” doom and gloom prediction!
By taboga
August 11, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Gregory,
You failed the test. The Nazi and Fox News references have long been exhausted. You need to come up with something original if you want to get in the game.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Hey Ken
Someone once said that a fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him. The implications of that undermine most of the agenda of the political left.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Hey Taboga,
People who say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror are unaffected by the fact that the terrorists themselves obviously think otherwise, as they converge on Iraq from other countries.
By TT
August 11, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
I suppose we’re all invincible, T-bag? Nothing can hold back us ‘Muricans. Not heart disease, obesity, pollution, cancer. Bush’ll fight it all. Here’s some facts for you: You’re no scientist, and you certainly are not a doctor. Just because you want to stick your fat head in the sand and pretend you’re God doesn’t change reality. I know it’s hard, but try to move beyond your middle-school education and debate with evidence.
By DB
August 11, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Gregory: I suggested taboga to sign up for the military, too, but he’s ingnoring it.
Taboga: You’re either in denial, or you’re a moron! Where do you get your information, the National Enquirer? I honestly don’t think you’re a moron because you do make a few good points once in a while? I suppose you think nuclear power plants don’t create nuclear waste either. And I suppose you think radiation doesn’t cause cancer.
So much for ingoring you.
By DB
August 11, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Taboga: I suppose you attribute the drastically increasing asthma rates in urban areas to the increasing number of trees, which, by the way is not in urban areas.
By TT
August 11, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
Taboga can’t sign up for the military, Brian. It’s hard to hold a weapon when your knuckles keep dragging the ground.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
The Winner is always part of the answer The Loser is always part of the problem.
The Winner is always has a program; The Loser always has an excuse.
The Winner says,”Let me do it for you; The Loser says;” That is not my job.”
The Winner sees an answer for every problem; The Loser sees a problem for every answer.
The Winner says,” It may be difficult but it is possible”; The Loser says,”It may be possible but it is too difficult.”
When a Winner makes a mistake, he says,” I was wrong”; When a Loser makes a mistake, he says,” It wasn’t my fault.”
A Winner makes commitments; A Loser makes promises.
Winners have dreams; Loser have schemes.
Winners say,” I must do something”; Losers say,”Something must be done.”
Winners are a part of the team; Losers are apart from the team.
Winners see the gain; Losers see the pain.
Winners see possibilities; Losers see problems.
Winners believe in win/win; Losers believe for them to win someone has to lose.
Winners see the potential; Losers see the past.
Winners are like a thermostat; Losers are like thermometers.
Winners choose what they say; Losers say what they choose.
Winners use hard arguments but soft words; Losers use soft arguments but hard words.
Winners stand firm on values but compromise on petty things; Losers stand firm on petty things but compromise on values.
Winners follow the philosophy of empathy: “Don’t do to others what you would, not want them to do to you”; Losers follow the philosophy, “Do it to others before they do it to you.”
Winners make it happen; Losers let it happen.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Tony,
That line of thinking - soars well above the heads of all the smart Leftists out here!
TT,
I see you are back in full glory - bashing the Christians again so as to make yourself feel good.
DB,
And I suppose you think radiation doesn’t cause cancer
I thought “radiation” was used to to try and kill cancer?
By DB
August 11, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
Tony: Let’s also not forget the point that the Iraq war united terrorists and created even more hatred. I do remember Zarquawi pledging allegience to Al Qaeda a while back. Also, let’s notice the increase in terrorism in Europe.
By vince
August 11, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
So, I think the light is coming through…. Anyone who has a child killed during a war and expects an apology from the president is a nitwit. Is that a nitwit before we found out we were lied to or after?
What about the catholics who used to eat meat on Friday before the church changed it’s rules? Do they get to be removed from Hell, or do they have to stay there?
By Argy
August 11, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
*Fact: Air pollution inceases asthma rates, lung cancer rates, heart attack rates, and pulmonary infection rates. And it decreases the growth of lungs during childhood causing lower lung capacity later in life
Fact: No it doesn’t.*
Taboga, I know you don’t like reading, but here’s a little something for ya on pollutants and lung function. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7533/7533.html
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the usual cut-and-paste, Tony. At least now that you’ve made a couple statements of your own, we can now see why you usually rely on others to think for you!
DB and Sandy have made a number of good points about nuclear power: it’s one of the efficient energy sources available to us, but we haven’t resolved the contamination and waste-disposal problem. These are legitimate areas of concern—especially since I wouldn’t trust the current twits in office to properly dispose of a ziploc baggie, let alone radioactive material.
Buy, hey—haven’t you guys heard? Thinking long-term is a “liberal” thing to do! All the cool kids only worry about splurging on more oil today, and to hell with tomorrow! Funny how they try to reverse that stance when they wring their hands and whine about how Social Security is “doomed in only 40 or 50 years,” isn’t it?
It’s a good thing there are so many stubbornly idiotic losers like taboga to prop up these corrupt jerks. If were held accountable for facts and performance in office, they’d be out on their ears in a flash.
By Argy
August 11, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Taboga, I suspect you’re being intentionally ridiculous with the radiation comment. However, as a personal favor, could you tell me what cancer is?
By DB
August 11, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Taboga: Yes, radiation kills cancer, but it also causes it. That’s why chemo and radiation are not really all that effective in curing cancer and why most cancer patients suffer relapses. Wow! You’re really starting to make me wonder.
Thanks Argy!
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
from Argy: “Taboga, I know you don’t like reading….”
It’s not dislike, Argy, it’s sheer lack of ability. Taboga has enough trouble trying to form complete sentences; fortunatley, he gets most of his material from bathroom walls.
By DB
August 11, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Taboga: As for life expectancy, the Hayflick limit is somewhere around the age of 120-150. And with stem cell research, we may learn DNA regulation techniques that may take the Hayflick limit out of the entire game. Of course, I don’t expect you to know what any of this means.
By TT
August 11, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Making stuff up again, are we Taboga? I have never bashed Christians. In fact, I am a Christian. And that entails trying to avoid an unneccessary loss of life (like the Iraq war) and helping the less fortunate, something which the so-called “Compassionate Conservatives” have abandoned in favor of oil money and tax cuts for the wealthy.
By lozen
August 11, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Gregory, everything you said about the woman protesting in Crawford!
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 11, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Winners who proclaim that soldiers are dying for noble causes don’t hide from grieving mothers; they don’t insult them by calling them “Mom” because they didn’t bother to learn the deceased and survivors’ names.
If the cause is so noble, Winners don’t hide the caskets of the fallen. Winners who ask people to sacrifice their lives don’t lie about the reasons they are being sent. Winners don’t send soldiers into battle without adequate equipment, and then stiff their compensation and veterans benefits.
Winners don’t contract torturing duties to those who cannot be held accountable. Winners don’t need to select their audiences before speaking about public policies.
Winners don’t smear the private lives of people who have made bigger sacrifices than they when they disagree with them (think Max Cleland, John McCain).
Winners hold their subordinates responsible when they break laws.
Winners don’t force oppressive regimes to take power in the name of democracy, nor do they condone oppression in the name of capitalism.
Winners don’t dress up and proclaim themselves winners and the war over until they at least have an exit strategy.
Real winners are not afraid of recounts.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Tony: Let’s also not forget the point that the Iraq war united terrorists and created even more hatred.
DB,
How do you have “more hatred” than ramming jetliners into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people?
By taboga
August 11, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
All,
It’s getting about time for Brian to counsel all of you as to why you shouldn’t reply to me.
And tt is back. So stand by for the predictably boring and exhausted replies. Not doubt we’ll be treated to another childish “you want fries with that…” attempt at wit.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Actually Brian, since you brought it up and you know I hate to show the hypocrisy of many of those on the left, however, for those who agree with Diane, and to use your warned-out oft thrown-out phrase, “You’re a bunch of drones.”
First of all the new energy bill is 1700 pages long. No way any of you have read it or understand all that is in it. Secondly, the very things your clamoring about ARE IN the BILL, For example, Tax incentives for home owners that are energy efficient, MPG incentives. Windmills, regulations on pollutions, etc. etc. etc.
There is very very little difference in this energy bill than that which was proposed by the Dems (sKerry) during the 2004 elections. (ANWR was taken out of this bill).
But alas, nothing right or wrong that this administration does will satisfy. Hence the butterfly locked in his prison. (My Post 10 Aug 10:05AM).
By vince
August 11, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Hatred of ramming planes into buildings and killing thousands of folks. That is hateful. Especially since most of the “hijackers” are still alive today. Amazing how they survived those big balls of fire.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Real winners are not afraid of recounts.
The winner doesn’t need a recount - he won. It’s the loser that wants a recount. And another. And another. And he’s still a loser.
Where is that loser anyway? I haven’t heard him screeching and begging lately - anyone seen Forest Gore?
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Tony: Actually, the bill includes several good provisions… but they’re more than outweighed by the disastrous subsidies and lack of foresight that basically transform it into a huge payout to the oil and energy conglomerates at the expense of genuine alternatives.
That’s what makes it, in balance, a bad plan. I’m hoping you can see the distinction, since you’re not hopelessly idiotic like Taboga the Troll.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Vince. Bless your heart. Do you still think 9/11 was staged? To my knowledge, everyone on those planes died in the crash. Were the hijackers wearing special suits?
By DB
August 11, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Taboga: That’s such an overused cliche! You tell others to come up with their own words? Look what you just did. If you remember correctly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11(and somehow now it does if you ask our administration and their blind followers), and I would equate invading a country, such as Iraq and starting a war(OR NOT TREATING IT AS A LAST RESORT OPTION) to be right in the same category as 9/11, which is WRONG. Afghanistan, that was justified since the Taliban had ties with 9/11. 9/11 was a horrific reminder of how barbaric humans can get, and don’t think for a minute I’ve forgotten or downplayed it. I just don’t think the war in Iraq made anything better; in fact, I believe it made things worse.
So what you’re telling is the war in Iraq is defeating terrorism? Are you really that stupid?
By Jack
August 11, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
I thought I was the troll. I live under a bridge a scare little children.
By DB
August 11, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Taboga: Give me one positive effect from the war in Iraq. And don’t start giving me this democracy and freedom crap when I know you could care less about the Iraqi people.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
August 11, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
In order to win, you must: 1. Come first; 2. Succeed; 3. Triumph; 4. Be successful; 5. Prevail; 6. Be the victor
Or you are a Loser. All of the above words mean the same thing.
So far, the only “Losers� have been the “family� of the deceased soldiers, killed in Iraq. They have lost much, but gained nothing. So the point to your “Winners and Loser� quotes is …………
“I’ll win, no matter what the cost.” Sounds like the thoughts of a true “Loserâ€? to me.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Peace will not occur in the Middle East until the Holy Land is vaporized via nukes. Iran is currently working on that now. In the meantime, after Iraq then on the Syria. By then Iran will have their big gun and will use it unless Israel sends in bombers.
By DB
August 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Jack: Wow! Then you should be pushing the conservatives to allow Iran to delve into nuclear power. And then we can suffer the consequences from the fallout all over the world. The problem is extremism, the answer is education, tolerance, and surgical removal of extremists.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
It really doesn’t matter what Toboga thinks about the people of Iraq. It is what they think that matters. They want us out, but they are glad we got rid of Sadamn and his two fine sons.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
DB. Now that is not politically correct. Can’t have that in the U.S.. We don’t want to offend anyone do we? Glad our founding fathers didn’t worry about political correctness or we would still be paying the British.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Liberating Iraq is a noble cause. It’s people lived under a tyrannical and abusive dictator. He denied his people the most basic ‘human’ rights. He abused the Iraqi people in some of the most horrific ways. 100’s of thousands where killed, mass graves, torture chambers. We are freeing people and forever changing a whole country for the better.
Virtually every action taken by the American military in Iraq has been criticized by the left. First coalition forces didn’t move on Fallujah soon enough, then it was too soon. Too many troops, not enough troops, too bold, too timid. Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time. Look at most leftist Posts on this Blog.
Since the very beginning there has been virtually no support for the liberation of Iraq from the left in this country, and the enemies of freedom in Iraq have certainly taken notice. How could they not? As soon as the United States appointed an interim Iraqi government to run the show until elections could be held, the left launched attacks on the validity of that government and predicted that it would fail. Don’t you just know that those who opposed any freely elected government in Iraq just beamed?
When Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi visited Washington DC this past Fall the American media virtually ignored him, an attempt to strip him of any vestige of legitimacy, respectability and authority. How could the enemies of freedom in the Middle East not notice?
There are people in the Middle East, around the world and here at home who earnestly want the US to fail miserably in Iraq. In the Middle East you have leaders in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other lesser countries who are frightened to death over what a freely elected government in Iraq would mean to them. These people are doing all they can to support the Iraqi Islamic insurgency. Around the world we have nations and leaders who want to see the role of the United States in international affairs weakened. They want a power vacuum that perhaps they can move to fill. They see a U.S. failure in Iraq as something that would weaken this country. The future lives of Iraqi civilians means nothing to these people compared to their desire to see the United States take a hit.
And that brings us here to our own people. There are people in this country: call them Bush-haters, Democrats, liberals, progressives … call them what you will … but they are dedicated to the idea of discrediting George Bush in any way that they can. They are dismayed over even the most remote possibility that Bush might actually pull a free, independent and stable Iraq out of his hat. They know that success in Iraq could change the face of the Middle East forever. It could be the beginning of the end of radical Islam .. and eventually make Islamic terrorism a thing of the past. Freedom is the greatest enemy of tyranny .. and those are the two sides battling it out in Iraq; but to listen to the left in this country you would think they’re leading the cheers for the tyranny side.
Let’s cut to the chase. How do you think things would be going in Iraq right now if there was unity in the United States? What do you think the situation would be in Iraq today if the American left had adopted the attitude that “Well, we’re in this. So let’s get the job done.”? Would American soldiers that have died be alive today if the left in this country had not done so much to discredit Bush and virtually everything he’s done in Iraq? How many insurgents would have stayed with their goats in Syria and Iran if they had believed that the United States was of one voice when it came to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq?
Noble cause, you bet! Winners you bet!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
August 11, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Tony, When in doubt, blame everyone else.
The reasoning behind the war has been adjusted so many times, I can see why the blind would keep following - they can’t see through all the smoke.
Reason:
1 - Let’s get them, because they were the cause of 911. 2 - They pose a threat because they have weapons of mass destruction 3 - They have terrorist, who are out to get us. Now, they will really be out to get us, but we “ain’t” scared. 4 - We’re must free them from that terrible dictator 5 - Now we must free them from “themselves”. 6 - We can’t quit now, because we almost “WON”.Maybe we will get it right one day, but I hope it is soon.
By Ken
August 11, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Tony… You make some valid points, but you also border on saying that we should blindly accept what the President does.
There needs to be a compromise, and that is all parties need to be more discrete and civil in the ways they debate. People like Reid, Kennedy, Rove, et al simply detract from the real work being done by folks like Bayhe, Snowe and moderates of their ilk.
We can be critical without being personal. We can be critical without being destructive. Right now the criticism is both.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Taboga: Give me one positive effect from the war in Iraq. And don’t start giving me this democracy and freedom crap when I know you could care less about the Iraqi people.
DB,
I will be a good sport and sincerely try and help you understand.
But in order to do that, you will have to shed the Liberal fantasies and let reality enter the realm of thought. If you think that you can do that, here goes:
Terrorism did not start overnight. Terrorism has been breeding in the Middle East for decades. We did nothing about it. The size and number of terrorists and their organizations continued to grow. We did nothing about it.
It doesn’t matter who did nothing, what wasn’t done, what could have been done or who should’ve done what - the bottom line is: We did nothing. And as a result of doing nothing - terrorist organizations flourish in the Middle East.
Now 9/11.
9/11 is what has come home to roost because of our negligence of the problem. We now; because we have no other choice, have to deal with the overall problem of terrorism that we have ignored for decades. It is not good enough, at this point, to treat 9/11 in the same manner that you would a convenience store robbery: Identify the suspect(s) and bring them to justice. We can’t afford to take that approach because we will be like a cat chasing its tail: Rounding-up the perpetrators of each individual incident and then sit back and wait for the next attack to occur.
Iraq.
We are not fighting OBL and Al Qaeda - we are fighting terrorism in its entirety. If we were to roundup OBL and every member of Al Qaeda tomorrow - nothing would change. New leaders, new terrorists and new groups would replace them the day after.
We went into Iraq simply because it was convenient. We had the Gulf War with Saddam. Saddam defied the international community by turning his nose at 18 different resolutions. Saddam was a brutal dictator. Saddam had WMD at one time and never proved he destroyed them and the whole world new it. All of these things combined made Iraq the convenient place to try and institute some form of an elected government and have a battle-ground for which to fight the terrorists at the same time. We don’t have to hunt for the terrorists - they are now coming to us!
If OBL is still alive somewhere, I am certain that he never, ever, would have thought that we would do what we are doing. My guess, is that his guess was, that after 9/11 we would slowly begin to strangle ourselves. Imposing so many security constraints within, that we began to destroy our own economy. And at the same time, we would exhaust ourselves searching through thousands of square miles of mountains and desert looking for him and his cohorts.
And after all those efforts; which would have been to no avail - he would’ve hit us again! We would then constrict even more; living in fear and panic and our economy would suffer even more. This, I have no doubt, was the goal of OBL: Attack us time and again until we destroyed ourselves out sheer panic and fear.
But GWB and his administration - did not take the bait. No, what they did, was to go right smack-dab in the center of the Middle East (Iraq), thus declaring to OBL and other terrorists: The Great Satan is right here and fully intends to democratize the Middle East!
That put the terrorists between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. They never wanted a war with our military, but they have no choice now because they can’t stand back and watch freedom being brought to the Middle East. Terrorism cannot survive and thrive in the environment of freedom and thus is the reason that they are trying so hard to prevent the democratization of Iraq.
And as there is probably a likelihood of us being attacked again here, it is far better having the terrorists occupied with our military forces in Iraq, rather than them focusing on our innocent civilians over here.
The War on Terror is not about who was responsible for 9/11. The War on Terror is being conducted because terrorism was responsible for 9/11 and if we don’t do something about the overall threat of terrorism - 9/11’s will happen over and over again.
…This will be the last time I will try and convince you Leftists to see the big picture and get off this childish and silly “Bush Lied”, “No WMD” nonsense that you are obsessed with.
It’s more fun to make fun of you anyway!
By Jack
August 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
After we leave Iraq, they will merge with Iran. Wait and see.
By Debra
August 11, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
I find it hard to believe scientist have not come up with a cheap, efficient fuel alternative since the oil embargo of the 1970’s. Could it be that big oil companies and car manufacturers are not permitting the development or accessibility of such resources because it would cut into their profits. In the mean time the human beings need to wake up and smell the petroleum. We need to take responsibility and stop buying those big gas guzzling vehicles that car manufactures are offering. Stop wasting the planets natural resources and polluting the environment. If folks are not willing to participate in a solution they need not complain.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
I find it hard to believe scientist have not come up with a cheap, efficient fuel alternative since the oil embargo of the 1970’s. Could it be that big oil companies and car manufacturers are not permitting the development or accessibility of such resources because it would cut into their profits.
Debra,
Why would those who profit from oil - care where the profits come from?
That is to say, if there are viable and doable alternative sources out there - why wouldn’t the oil companies be the first ones to invest in it?
Personally, I believe that if Potted Meat would fuel our cars efficiently and would turn a profit, those in the oil business would drop oil like the hot potato and become: Big Potted Meat!
By Archie
August 11, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
I am one of those silly Leftists that believe Bush lied and there are no WMD’s. That explanation read good but it also sounds like someone anointed America,Almighty God. It speaks to superiority complex that I have written about because so many innocent Iraqi’s have been killed—more than 2,300,much more. Also that explanation assumes that anyone not agreeing with the president is butt-a.. stupid. 9/11 occurred not because we didn’t bomb someone but because the people we had in place to prevent it didn’t do their jobs. Also it’s a fact that Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. How many more memos,former CIA people associated with the White House, do we have to read or hear before it’s understood that Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. I know Ken doesn’t like to hear the harsh talk but Bush lied plain and simple. I do agree the war has terrorists focused on Iraq and I agree they don’t want to mess with our military but then terrorists organizations are closer in size to gangs than an army which means they just don’t have anyone in place here. When their people get in place they will blow up something just as they in London. The terrorists don’t think about winning the way we do otherwise you wouldn’t have suicide missions. I would like to hear an explanation as attempted by taboga from the President. I mean that’s what those ladies that have lost sons want to hear.
By Questions
August 11, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Good points, so it is democracy at the point of a gun. (assuming democracy will resolve all interest in terrorism)
Now if the culture not even capabale of democracy, hardly matters, (see first sentence)?
Did we in the US just get up one day and say “Heh, we are going to have a representative government and let’s call it a democracy, forget those Brits”.
Have we not had local, home-grown terrorism? Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? Wasn’t that several hundred deaths? Don’t think he considered himself a liberal, either.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Archie,
You need to stop pretending that we live in a make-believe world. The real one is the only one we have. And in the real one - ugly things are going to happen at times.
Do you think that anyone has taken pleasure in innocent Iraqis being killed? Do you think that anyone even likes the thought of that?
We live in the real world Archie and the real world just ain’t perfect partner. I hate to be the one to break that to you. I have no doubt, that if there were a perfect way to deal with terrorists - we would have chosen it. I have no doubt. But there’s no such thing pal…
Our world doesn’t exist in a textbook. In a classroom we could all be experts at solving problems with dialogue and diplomacy, peace and love. And we could all pat each other on the back for being such wonderful and compassionate people and no one ever gets hurt.
But in our real world - life ain’t like that. And we cannot afford to pretend that we live elsewhere.
By Jack
August 11, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Well said Taboga.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Questions,
I want you to do yourself a favor and see the elephant standing in the middle of the room.
We have approximately 150,000 American troops in Iraq. Do you realize where they are? They are completely surrounded by 10’s of millions of Arabs! If the Arabs did not want us there - we would be run-over by the hordes and squashed like flies.
The fact that this has not happened - should tell you something.
By Gene
August 11, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
RE; global warming There has been a previous world leader who was remarkably similar to Bush in suppressing any scientic evidence that was counter to his ideology: guy by the name of Stalin.
By Tony
August 11, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
We’re not omniscient. That means making errors is unavoidable. Understanding the nature of errors is vital to our well-being. Let’s look at it.
There are two types of errors, nicely named the type I error and the type II error. The type I error is when we reject a true hypothesis when we should accept it. The type II error is when we accept a false hypothesis when we should reject it. In decision-making, there’s always a non-zero probability of making one error or the other. That means we’re confronted with asking the question: Which error is least costly? Let’s apply this concept to a couple of issues.
The stated reason for going to war with Iraq is that our intelligence agencies surmised Saddam Hussein had, or was near having, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence is never perfect. During World War II, our intelligence agencies thought that Germany was close to having an atomic bomb. That intelligence was later found to be flawed, but it played an important role in the conduct of the war.
Since intelligence is always less than perfect, we’re forced to decide which error is least costly. Leading up to our war with Iraq, the potential errors confronting us were: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn’t. Or, he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he did. Both errors are costly, but which is more costly?
It’s my guess that it would have been more costly for us to make the first error: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn’t.
Another example of type I and type II errors hits closer to home. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, in their drug approval process, can essentially make two errors. They can approve a drug that has unanticipated dangerous side effects (type II). Or, they can disapprove, or hold up approval of, a drug that’s perfectly safe and effective (type I). In other words, they can err on the side of under-caution or err on the side of over-caution. Which error do FDA officials have the greater incentive to make?
If a FDA official errs by approving a drug that has unanticipated, dangerous side effects, he risks congressional hearings, disgrace and termination. Erring on the side of under-caution produces visible, sick victims who are represented by counsel and whose plight is hyped by the media.
Erring on the side of over-caution is another matter. A classic example was beta-blockers, which an American Heart Association study said will “lengthen the lives of people at risk of sudden death due to irregular heartbeats.” The beta-blockers in question were available in Europe in 1967, yet the FDA didn’t approve them for use in the U.S. until 1976. In 1979, Dr. William Wardell, a professor of pharmacology, toxicology and medicine at the University of Rochester, estimated that a single beta-blocker, alprenolol, which had already been sold for three years in Europe, but not approved for use in the U.S., could have saved more than 10,000 lives a year.
The type I error, erring on the side of over-caution, has little or no cost to FDA officials. Grieving survivors of those 10,000 people who unnecessarily died each year don’t know why their loved one died, and surely they don’t connect the death to FDA over-caution.
For FDA officials, these are the best kind of victims — invisible ones. When an FDA official holds a press conference to announce its approval of a new life-saving drug, I’d like to see just one reporter ask:
How many lives would have been saved had the FDA not delayed the drug’s approval?
The bottom line is, we humans are not perfect. We will make errors. Rationality requires that we recognize and weigh the cost of one error against the other.
By Walter E. Williams
By Ken
August 11, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Archie… I don’t like harsh, accusatory talk like that b/c nothing comes from it. All that does is stir the animosity pot. I will never say you can’t make that statement, but I will say it can do nothing but harm.
And no… We didn’t wake up one day and decide to be a representative government. They were already ruled by a representative government. They simply were not represented. Who knows… Had Britain given the colonists representation, maybe the Revolution wouldn’t have happened.
Also… We also had a superpower assist us in that struggle. I wonder how many Frenchmen were second guessing their government at that time, and I wonder what would have happened had they bailed on us half way through.
One more thing… Keep in mind, once the colonies were free, they didn’t have our current Constitutional government for several years. They operated under the Article of Confederation. Personally, I believe it is a miracle that Iraq has come this far this quickly amidst the existing turmoil.
By lozen
August 11, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Gosh, it seems some of you didn’t hear that it’s no longer a war on terriorism. It’s changed again. It’s now a war on “Islamic extremism.” I know it’s almost impossible to keep up with the administration’s newest spin but please, try to keep up!
By Bruce
August 11, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
I can’t understand, other than the fact that we are there trying to improve the lives of those that were living under Sadamm, why we are taking the hit on lives lost. What I mean is, it is not the American military that is setting off car bombs and killing many at a time. It is those opposed to freedom. Why aren’t those that disagree with this war screaming for the heads of those encouraging these people who are actually doing the killing? They were killing each other before we got there, they have killed all over the world then they come over here and kill some of us. And now that we are there they are still killing themselves and us. Shouldn’t we try to help stop some of the killing? We didn’t do anything about it UNTIL they came to us. We didn’t even do anything when they attacked us outside our own country. We did nothing until they came to North America. Even then there are those that think 9/11 was something staged by the current administration. I just do not understand the logic….
By DB
August 11, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Taboga: I’m not a leftist. Also, thanks for contributing more than a few sentences without antagonizing people. I understand your view, but it’s simply not working. And I already knew all the information you just offered. And, in addition to that, 9/11 could have been prevented or at least thwarted if the administration were to listen to intelligence in the first place. And it’s obvious you don’t see the attacks in London, Spain, and probably the next one here(hopefully not) as a sign that terrorism is now growing and becoming more endemic. Even the native born are attacking their own nations. Why are we planning on pulling out next year if it’s such an important front against terrorism? Claiming that terrorism only occurs in other countries that support or supported us(London and Spain) is success is quite myopic. The problem is that war is not the only answer, but just one of the many. I believe our upgrades in homeland security have made the most difference, but the war cancelled that out. Terrorism needs to be fought from many fronts, and the least effective is war(in Iraq sense). Covert operations as a result of intelligence are much more effective. Now, I concur with the fact that terrorists are now being drawn to Iraq, but I also believe they are being created just as fast as they are being terminated, if not faster. One of the most obvious ways in which to fight terrorism should also include an agressive program to stop flow of billions of dollars of money to the Middle East in the first place. But that makes for a serious conflict of interest for many American corporations and Saudis. In a way, we empowered the terrorists long ago by importing oil in the first place. The Middle East only supplies about 35-40% of our oil, which we could completely stop within 5 years simply by changing government policy and EPA mandates. It should have started 20 years ago, plain and simple. I think Bush has done some good things, and he has done some bad things, but it’s not Bush who makes every decision. I have a problem with decisions being made from the extreme right. There’s not a whole lot of critical thinking going on. They still solve problems like we’re back in WWII when the world has changed drastically. Might only solves some problems.
So, as I asked you before, give me one positive from the whole war. If you don’t attack from all fronts, wars become worthless. You make many good points, but I don’t see any real improvement of the situation. Any lack of attack here is simply caused by increased security, awareness, and vigilance.
Oh, and I love how the conservatives make us think Saddam was a real threat halfway across the world, especially since we rolled over his government in five minutes after a short visit. The real issue is that they didn’t finish what they started in the first Gulf war, which has more to do with strategic control of the Middle East than terrorism, not to mention they gave Saddam a reason to avenge from our first attack and therefore needed to do something about that. So, it’s nothing more than mopping up after a terrible mishap.
Now, when we start wars with every nation that disagrees with us, we’re eventually going to be spread even thinner than we already are. Allies are running low, and I fear the consequences of that.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Let’s play ball with Gene…
Alright Gene, would you enlighten us all specifically on just how President Bush compares with Stalin?
Please note: I am not asking this in a serious manner. I would simply like to be treated once again to another liberal treasure.
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Tony: You overlook the better option: not making an error at all.
If we didn’t take action against Saddam because we properly evaluated the intelligence and inspection reports to ensure that he didn’t have WMDs (which, don’t forget, turned out to be the cold, hard reality taboga’s allegedly so fond of), then what would the consequences have been?
A dictator would probably still be running Iraq—and we wouldn’t have our soldiers getting killed over there for no good reason. Better than 1,800 U.S. soldiers would still be alive; over 10,000 would be uninjured. The threat of terrorism would not have increased; the world would not be damn-near united against us; and we would be guilty of breaking a lot fewer of our own laws than we currently are today.
Perfection is, as you note, impossible. But shouldn’t we at least try to do a little better than rushing to war every time somebody sneezes?
By Questions
August 11, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
read a quick blurb, apparently Blair refused admittance to the UK of one of those firebrand Pakistani clerics. Good start, he now needs to export some.
Taboga - we will just have to wait and see exactly what kind of Islamic republic “democracy” we created over there, Jack had a good point earlier about Iraq/Iran combining eventually. Only real problem with that is one culture is Arab and the other is Persian. both mostly Shiite though.(excluding the Kurds in the Arab/Persian comment)
By Brian Curtis
August 11, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
DB: I may not agree with all your points, but they’re very well stated. If taboga were capable of learning, he could do worse than to copy your example.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Welcome back. Alot has happened while you were away in a coma.
“Islamic Extremism” has been used countless times to describe the enemy. This is nothing new to the rest of us.
Take it easy at first - your legs need time to get strong again.
By blablabla
August 11, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Sandy & DB:
thanks much for your intelligent response. it’s appreciated.
a couple of points to each of you…sandy: there hasn’t been many new nuclear facilities built during my lifetime, so your fear of rolling back environmental policies because of your feelings about the current administration doesn’t really make too much sense. the lack of investment in nuclear power long pre-dates the current administration. and as DB correctly points out, the spent nuclear fuel is typically stored at the site of the reactor once it has finished cooling, so there is no issue of sending the waste to renegades or whoever else wants to cull what usable elements are left to make weapons. just to be completely clear, i would be totally against sending spent nuclear fuel to anyplace outside our borders.
and also to be clear, i’m not talking about building nuclear plants in other countries, i’m talking using nuclear power here in the US to help alleviate the demand for oil and other fossil fuels.
and sandy, i don’t know for a fact that big oil isn’t thrwarting nuclear power plant proliferation, but that would put them on the same side of the argument as environmental groups, and i just can’t realistically see that happening. can you?
DB: i’m talking more about nuke for use in the US. i don’t support teaching other countries nuclear technology for power in this day and age. from a national security standpoint, i would feel WAAAAY more comfortable with one storage facility for all the spent nuclear fuel than having to store it on-site at 100 different nuclear reactor locations. terrorists would have one target instead of 100. the main reason why yucca mountain isn’t being used is not due to the fear of attacks by terrorists during transport (although you bring up a very good point), it’s more due to the fact that people absolutely REFUSE to have spent nuclear fuel transported through their area from the power plant to yucca mountain. in my opinion, people (including politicians) are very uneducated about nuclear power and spent nuclear fuel. if we drove a cask of spent nuclear fuel through atlanta at 50mph and the cask fell off the trailer it was on, first of all, the cask wouldn’t break. and second of all, if it did, there wouldn’t be any significant contamination. but that doesn’t matter - people are freaked out by anything nuclear because of chernobyl or because of what almost (but didn’t) happen at 3 mile island.
what is really funny to me is that a lot of people (either through fear, ignorance, or just plain knowing the facts and not liking nuclear power) don’t want nuclear power in the US, but don’t complain at all about a chernobyl style reactor sitting 100 miles off US shore in cuba.
By DB
August 11, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Tony and others: As for unity on the war plan, I’m not looking to blame for all mistakes, I’m looking for a better plan altogether and a willingness to admit mistakes and correct them asap. Nothing like that is being done.
Besides, as for our unity, I stand behind Bush since he is our president, regardless of my opinions. There’s a difference between that and criticizing someone. The fact that many people disagree with him, I call that democracy. And that is exactly what Iraqis and others should see. They should see that one person or a small group of people should never run a country without accountability. So are you suggesting that we all agree with the war plan and just shut up? I think not. And without the lefties, the moderates wouldn’t have a place to exist.
Let me ask you another thing, how many of you have ever been to Iraq, had a person shooting at you, picked up a dead 3-year-old off the street with Mother weeping terribly? How many of you have seen your friend picked off by a sniper? How many of you have felt the fear of a car driving up to you not knowing if there’s a bomb in it? How many of you have prayed that you don’t have to shoot innocent people? How many of you have seen an apartment building taken down by a missile? How many of you people on this blog have actually fought in combat?
By DB
August 11, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
blabla: I didn’t mean you were talking about nuclear in other countries. I’m just saying that once we start doing the same, countries like Iran and North Korea, etc., will feel they have the right to do so. And we’ll only be able to stop them by creating wars in the long run. That’s it.
By DB
August 11, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
blabla: Actually, here’s a better way to put it. The more nuclear power there is in the world, the higher the probability more countries will start using it and the higher the probability more countries will make nuclear weapons(and sell them). Let me just say, without giving anyone ideas, that nuclear reactors are the least of our worries when it comes to terrorist targets. Much more damage can be done with what sits next to them.
By DB
August 11, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Anyway, this is all beside the point. What has happened has happened. I’m going to let the government, who has much more information than all of us, make their decisions. Hopefully, they figure things out.
By Gene
August 11, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
OK Toboga
Google “Lysenko” Stalin didn’t like what he was saying about genetics and human free will, so he had his political goons simply excise Lysenko’s works and rewrite the science. Sound familiar?
By TT
August 11, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Ah, so let’s play police all over the world…our guns are better than your guns. Let’s start wars on every continent, downplay the costs, and forbid the media from showing pictures of the brave, young men coming back home in coffins. If some of you fools keep voting for warmongers, we’ll be back in the bread lines. The answer is not to go stampeding into the Middle East to democratize Iraq, Iran, or any other nation. We can’t afford to take care of everyone. It’s high time we started taking care of our own here at home. And I say we start with treating our veterans with respect and restoring their access to quality health care.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Taboga: I’m not a leftist.
You are - you just don’t know it.
Also, thanks for contributing more than a few sentences without antagonizing people. I understand your view, but it’s simply not working.
It is working amazingly well in such a short period of time.
And I already knew all the information you just offered. And, in addition to that, 9/11 could have been prevented or at least thwarted if the administration were to listen to intelligence in the first place.
No amount of intelligence will ever prevent all attempted attacks.
And it’s obvious you don’t see the attacks in London, Spain, and probably the next one here(hopefully not) as a sign that terrorism is now growing and becoming more endemic.
There were more attacks of terrorism before 9/11 than there have been since.
Why are we planning on pulling out next year if it’s such an important front against terrorism?
There has been no decision to pull out next year. There are always going to be plans to pull out because you have to have the logistics in place long before the withdrawal.
Claiming that terrorism only occurs in other countries that support or supported us(London and Spain) is success is quite myopic. The problem is that war is not the only answer, but just one of the many.
You need to think DB, you need to think - WAR is the only option that we have now! Had we done something about this growing threat 25 or 30 years ago it might have been different. But right now - they have chosen war with us. We have no choice but to fight and win.
I believe our upgrades in homeland security have made the most difference, but the war cancelled that out.
All the security in the world will not prevent attacks.
Terrorism needs to be fought from many fronts, and the least effective is war(in Iraq sense). Covert operations as a result of intelligence are much more effective.
And we are doing just that! Simply because we are fighting militarily, doesn’t mean that we are not fighting via other means.
Now, I concur with the fact that terrorists are now being drawn to Iraq, but I also believe they are being created just as fast as they are being terminated, if not faster.
Far more Rebels joined the Confederacy after the Union Army retaliated for the attack on Ft. Sumter. And they were defeated as well.
One of the most obvious ways in which to fight terrorism should also include an agressive program to stop flow of billions of dollars of money to the Middle East in the first place. But that makes for a serious conflict of interest for many American corporations and Saudis.
That’s Leftist prattle and has nothing to do with terrorism.
In a way, we empowered the terrorists long ago by importing oil in the first place.
Oil has nothing to do with it.
The Middle East only supplies about 35-40% of our oil, which we could completely stop within 5 years simply by changing government policy and EPA mandates. It should have started 20 years ago, plain and simple.
Oil has nothing to do with it.
I think Bush has done some good things, and he has done some bad things, but it’s not Bush who makes every decision. I have a problem with decisions being made from the extreme right. There’s not a whole lot of critical thinking going on.
If we had another 25 or 30 years for “critical thinking”…
They still solve problems like we’re back in WWII when the world has changed drastically. Might only solves some problems.
And weakness solves none.
So, as I asked you before, give me one positive from the whole war. If you don’t attack from all fronts, wars become worthless. You make many good points, but I don’t see any real improvement of the situation. Any lack of attack here is simply caused by increased security, awareness, and vigilance.
You are asking for MIRACLES. There is no magic wand that can be waved and these problems be resolved overnight.
Oh, and I love how the conservatives make us think Saddam was a real threat halfway across the world, especially since we rolled over his government in five minutes after a short visit.
And the Leftists moaned and groaned about how many thousands of our boys would come home in body-bags, remember that?
The real issue is that they didn’t finish what they started in the first Gulf war, which has more to do with strategic control of the Middle East than terrorism, not to mention they gave Saddam a reason to avenge from our first attack and therefore needed to do something about that.
And in the first Gulf War - we were complying with the UN mandates. The same thing you Leftists wanted us to do this time.
So, it’s nothing more than mopping up after a terrible mishap.
No, it is what happens when you try and appease the United Nations and have all these consensuses about what to do and how to do it. And nothing ever really gets done.
Now, when we start wars with every nation that disagrees with us, we’re eventually going to be spread even thinner than we already are. Allies are running low, and I fear the consequences of that.
More prattle. Nobody has suggested that we are going to go to war with everyone who “disagrees” with us. Leftist prattle.
By Gene
August 11, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
taboga, what makes you think everyone who criticizes President Pantsonfire is a Leftist? If he were alive (would that he were) you’d be really railing against Goldwater, a true conservative.
By TT
August 11, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Taboga—who are you to tell DB what he is? You don’t even know the definition of the key terms you like to throw around, such as liberal, communism, and leftist. From an economic standpoint, you’re certainly not a conservative. Financially, this country is living off of debt, if you and your war mongering pals would stop stretching our resources so thin and stop leaping into bed with Mexico and Latin America, more blue collar American workers would be better off. At least vote to keep American money here since you’re such a fan of the ‘Murican way. Republicans want to tear down the American working poor for the sake of the Iraqi middle class.
By Debra
August 11, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
taboga,
The oil companies may not have the monopoly they have now to control the prices of another fuel source. Basic principles of Supply and Demand. If a product is scarce they can charge more, if the new fuel source were made of something in abundance any easy to manufacture the product would be much less expensive. Also the auto manufacturers would have to spend more money adapting another fuel source.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Ah, so let’s play police all over the world…our guns are better than your guns. Let’s start wars on every continent, downplay the costs, and forbid the media from showing pictures of the brave, young men coming back home in coffins. If some of you fools keep voting for warmongers, we’ll be back in the bread lines. The answer is not to go stampeding into the Middle East to democratize Iraq, Iran, or any other nation. We can’t afford to take care of everyone. It’s high time we started taking care of our own here at home. And I say we start with treating our veterans with respect and restoring their access to quality health care.
That is priceless!
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Taboga�who are you to tell DB what he is? You don’t even know the definition of the key terms you like to throw around, such as liberal, communism, and leftist. From an economic standpoint, you’re certainly not a conservative. Financially, this country is living off of debt, if you and your war mongering pals would stop stretching our resources so thin and stop leaping into bed with Mexico and Latin America, more blue collar American workers would be better off. At least vote to keep American money here since you’re such a fan of the ‘Murican way. Republicans want to tear down the American working poor for the sake of the Iraqi middle class.
You go girl!
By Questions
August 11, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Oil has nothing to do with it?
If there were no oil in the Middle East, we would not be actively involved there, prior to 9/11, for the past 50 years in fact, and there would not have been any terrorism created against us(the USA). Why would local terrorists in the Middle East seek out the USA if we were not even there? Senseless….
Oh, they would seek us out for providing all that military support to Israel, so maybe oil has nothing to do with it after all. So this really is a religious war. Lots of good an Islamic Republic will do then.(to lessen the threat of terrorism against us)
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
taboga, what makes you think everyone who criticizes President Pantsonfire is a Leftist? If he were alive (would that he were) you’d be really railing against Goldwater, a true conservative.
Gene,
You don’t know the difference between criticizing and absurdity. Criticize President Bush all you want - I have done it a number of times. And so have many other conservatives.
By Questions
August 11, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Why aren’t the folks from the Asian religions(Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) over here flying planes into tall buildings?
By Gene
August 11, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Good point, Questions. In addition to funneling taxpayer dollers to Haliburton, it is a religious war, fueled by our annoying habit of sucking up to Israel.
By Gene
August 11, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
And you don’t know the definition of “conservative.” Didn’t hear from you on the Bush/Stalin connection. Can you turn off your A/M radio long enough to pick up a history book?
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Questions,
Let me try this on you. You, as do most Leftists, believe that we shouldn’t be in the Middle East.
What if we were to turn that around? What if we believed that those from the Middle East shouldn’t be here?
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Sure Gene - which “History Book” do you suggest?
By Questions
August 11, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Thank You Taboga
thank you.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
Sorry Gene - I don’t get the “connection”.
But I have one that I think all you Comrades will be proud of:
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.
-Joseph Stalin
By blablabla
August 11, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
tt:
you said - “Financially, this country is living off of debt, if you and your war mongering pals would stop stretching our resources so thin and stop leaping into bed with Mexico and Latin America, more blue collar American workers would be better off.”
question for you - do you really think American workers would be better off if all the things made cheaply in Mexico or Latin America were instead made in the US? why or why not?
and this week, try to answer without exposing your own stereotypes by calling me fat, low class or telling me how you’re climbing the corporate ladder because of your graduate programs (ha!) and how i’m going to work for you someday. thanks.
By DB
August 11, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Taboga: Thanks for the insight. It’s intriguing to now know I’m a leftist. Since you tell me I am, I must be since you’re right about everything else. Let me tell you something; you don’t know what you are either. You’re all over the board in telling everyone they’re wrong just for the sake of telling them their wrong. You don’t make any sense. So keep sitting on your throne in front of the computer screen and waiting to respond to every post.
By blablabla
August 11, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Google “Lysenko� Stalin didn’t like what he was saying about genetics and human free will, so he had his political goons simply excise Lysenko’s works and rewrite the science. Sound familiar?
Gene - so let me get this straight - find one thing that Stalin did that you believe is similar to something George Bush did and now Bush isn’t all that different from Stalin? is that your point? Whether I like Bush or not, that’s pretty absurd. your comparative sample size is precisely 1 characteristic.
that’s akin to the following…
My dog scratches his nut$. Gene scratches his nut$. whoa, Gene must be a lot like my dog. Ok, I take that back, you might be on to something, Gene. Good work on that one.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Gene,
The board is about to close for the day and I still don’t know which history book I need to read. I may never know of the vaunted GWB/Stalin connection.
By taboga
August 11, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Gene is scratching your dog’s nut$…?
What in the world…
By Questions
August 11, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this
Me thinks Taboga really a Communist, (what they teach us in grade-school, that those always ranting against something, are probably that exact thing). Good cover, you know.
a conservative 8th grade teacher taught me that. Mr. Prather. (“You gotta watch out for people always foaming at the mouth about Communists”)
By DB
August 11, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this
Taboga: So, are we going to attack Iran next month when they fail to stop their program by the new U.N. deadline? Or should we just start attacking next week? Can’t you see we’re playing right into their little plan? They know we don’t have the resources or stupidity to do that.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this
Questions,
I have no doubt that “Mr. Prather” taught you that. No doubt at all.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
DB,
You might have noticed, that we are not driven these days by “UN deadlines” or the like.
By vince
August 12, 2005 07:49 AM | Link to this
Jack - Special suits? That is not an intelligent response. And if you think because this little blog has your opinion in the majority, you really need to open your eyes. No, I don’t think the hijackers wore special suits, the reason they are still alive is because they weren’t on the plane. The Associated Press wrote that Waleed al Shebri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the US Embassy in Morocco a week after 9/11. And there are others, you can look them up, because I am getting tired of trying to have an intelligent conversation with rebuttals such as, “special suits”. And, does anyone really believe that 91 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and defeated the laws of physics by bringing down three steel framed buildings in a way that perfectly mimicked demolition. And, if we were attacked by criminals, why was Condi Rice fired? And, whats really baffling is that not only did she keep her job, but got a promotion. And why didn’t the 9/11 Commission subpoena the film from the video cameras confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks on the Pentagon? At least that would have cleared up if it was a Boeing 757.
By Bruce
August 12, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this
Vince,
Are you trying to tell us you have evidence that proves 9/11 was all a big conspiracy planned and carried out by the Bush Administration? Why haven’t you given this evidence to the press yet? If what you say is true then those that planned all that should be tried for murder, about 3000 counts. Good lord man why are you not shouting from the mountain tops and passing copies of this material to everyone in the world? Why are you holding back? America and the world deserves to know the truth. Come forward man.
By Augustine
August 12, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
A dictator would probably still be running Iraqâ€â€?and we wouldn’t have our soldiers getting killed over there for no good reason. Better than 1,800 U.S. soldiers would still be alive; over 10,000 would be uninjured. The threat of terrorism would not have increased; the world would not be damn-near united against us; and we would be guilty of breaking a lot fewer of our own laws than we currently are today. - Brian Curtis What did we do in 1979 that made them take the American embassy hostage? What did we do in April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people? Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. What did we do to them then? Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait. In August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main,Germany - 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. What did he do Brian? The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war! All these events happened before the first Gulf War. Brian are you telling us that not going to war would have reduced the likely hood for another attack? You don’t have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. You think the countries that are “united” against us do so because of this war? The anti-U.S. rhetoric began the day the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Take a look at the governments in place now versus the governments that were in place when the wall came down. The Communist/Socialist noose is tightening.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 12, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
Blablabla, apparently investors don’t see that there is money to be made in nuclear power and thus have not gone forward. Common sense tells us that nuclear power requires a long-term commitment to safely maintain and improve plants as technology improves and changes, which must be very expensive in both short and longer terms.
I may be wrong, but I’m under the impression that our nuclear facilities have never produced the peak energy expected, making reliance on it less secure. Because of the uncertainties of safety, expense, environmental impact, etc., it’s much less attractive from a business standpoint. I think that oil is probably more easily manipulated both directly in terms of when and how it is supplied and delivered, and indirectly by the available of products that use it. If nuclear fueled cars were commonplace, that would certainly pique interest, but I don’t think the technology is sustainable.
Obviously, I’m no energy specialist or expert in big business, (despite my belief that Big Oil exists) but if this could be done on the cheap, I imagine that the US would try it out in 3rd world countries first, where regulations are looser and labor cheaper, as we have seen with other manufacturing.
I live in Rochester, NY, and the former business jewel, Kodak, continues to eliminate and send jobs out of the country to remain competitive. Same with GM, Xerox, IBM. Bausch and Lomb has increased jobs here by a few hundred, but the city has sure taken a hit, and the population is dwindling. Incidentally, we do have a nuclear plant not far from here on the shores of Lake Ontario; it doesn’t make the news much, which is probably a good thing… I’ll have to investigate further.
In the spring, a factory in Honeoye Falls (about 10 miles south of Rochester) announced it would start manufacturing fuel cell motors. I hope this means clean, efficient, affordable, and sustainable energy for the future, creating well paying jobs.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 12, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Bla, and as far as big oil being on the same side as environmental groups, I don’t think it’s a conscious thing, but more a common enemy for different reasons.
Disparate groups do sometimes come together for the common good, such as the fundamentalists and liberals coming together to fight genocide and famine in Africa, in this case a conscientious decision. Paradox at work.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this
In the spring, a factory in Honeoye Falls (about 10 miles south of Rochester) announced it would start manufacturing fuel cell motors. I hope this means clean, efficient, affordable, and sustainable energy for the future, creating well paying jobs.
And maybe they’ll provide Day Care, a 4 day work week, college tuition and host birthday parties for all the children!
That would be wonderful!
By Jack
August 12, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Nice post Sandy. Don’t let Toboga set the hooks.
By Chilao
August 12, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
I was hoping that someone could help me out about that National Geographic article about Power Sources. Did not know what to do, without the proper guidance. But when I sat down to read it last night, learned the article was really titled “After Oil, Future Power, and since we have it on good authority right here on this blog that the concept of limited resources, especially oil, is merely left-wing propoganda, I declined reading it. Decided to stick my head in the sand and get a Hummer instead. Wait, I like to travel around the country, nice to help out the market in ways other than my whole trip cash allocation being spent on fuel. Better stick with my great-mileage vehicle.
(Laughing) But the article actually did point out that many things DID start with government activity, prodding the private sector, as this bill does with incentives, etc.(I know, Leftism at work again). One example used in the article that I remember, (erroneous, however, in my view, since it not power related), was this exact internet, being initially military and then academia, before Wall Street even discovered the internet.
Government involvement always results in bad things, you know.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Chilao,
What were you talking about?
By Chilao
August 12, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
Taboga - don’t worry about it, it not addressed to you. it was for those with reading comprehension skills that remember my question yesterday.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Oh, those people…
By Ben
August 12, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
Hey folks. I see things haven’t changed much. Another boring topic, and even worse, ignorant people who think they know everything.
And for the person who asked if anyone on here has been to war, been shot at, and all that garbage — the answer is Yes. Just got back from 6 memorials for friends of mine. The REAL news from Iraq is not pretty folks. But I’m sure people like Tobago don’t care much because they have no chips on the table.
By vince
August 12, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Hey Bruce - Stanley Hilton, former advisor to Bob Dole, Runsfeld and Wolfowitz has a mountain of evidence and has already filed criminal law suits on behalf on the 9/11 families. Bush’s lawyers keep not showing up. But, the hard evidence comes from the federal governments websites, and I encourage you to review them yourself. On the White House website, Bush is quoted, “I saw the first plane fly into the WTC and I thought that’s a bad pilot.” Nobody saw the first plane fly in on live tv.
7 hijackers were never in US on 9/11 and three of them have US Navy bases as addresses on their driver’s licenses.
How come only two Democrats were the only ones to receive Anthrax laced letters on 9/11? Don’t the terrorists dislike all Americans? Or just the Democrats? And how come nobody has solved that crime yet?
And, I would like to think that the USA has the strongest and best defense system in the world. So, how could 19 bumbling Arabs do what they did against the strongest defense in history? I mean, come on people? Are these questions really so hard?
The horizontal strike at the WTC occured 1000 feet above the ground and registered a major seismic strike - and when a Boeing 757 strikes the pentagon only a few feet from the ground, there are no seismic jolts recorded? (Again, these are facts from government websites, not my opinion)
Flight 93 left a debris field six miles long in PA. How?
By taboga
August 12, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
Ben,
You’re a liar. Plain and simple.
By Ben
August 12, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
Taboga - Yeah you caught me. I’m a liar. I should have known better than to try and fool you, oh wise one.
By Sandy/Sanhan
August 12, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Ben- my condolences and prayers to you and your friends’ families.
By DB
August 12, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Chilao: Good point. All the oil companies and energy utilities are investing a great deal of time and money into alternative fuels and renewable resources. General Electric and Ecomagination is one of the best examples. It’s only a matter of time. I guess all the energy corporations are leftists. No one’s in the middle embracing both sides of it.
Taboga: Sorry, but I don’t even know who Mr. Prath is. I tend to read unbiased news from all countries and put my own conclusions together. I don’t listen to conspiracy theories until there is substantial evidence to support them. Your whole anti-terrorism arguments don’t hold water. The justifications from the right are just as transient as the justifications from left. Do you honestly believe our government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to tame something that cost 2800 lives on U.S. soil in the past 4 years when heart disease, cancer, car accidents, the flu, diabetes, cost millions of lives and only get a few hundred million collectively. You ask why all those attacks took place OVERSEAS against our people(except one of course). Let me ask you this. Why is it that the United States is so often targeted? The real solution lies in addressing that issue. Do you think, just maybe, our AGGRESSIVE, COERCIVE, and ARROGANT foreign policy has anything to do with that? After WWII, we decided to take all fights overseas, and terrorism is the byproduct. When China and India join as Superpowers, will they be attacked? As long as we interfere and push people around, we’re always going to get punches here and there. And there’s nothing that will stop it, not even a several hundred billion dollars, several thousands of lives, and several wars. I would conclude that our government isn’t that stupid to waste all that when they know it will not make things any different, so the true reasons for war are, well, strategic and beyond our knowledge.
By blablabla
August 12, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
Sandy:
Thanks for the response.
“Blablabla, apparently investors don’t see that there is money to be made in nuclear power and thus have not gone forward.”
nuclear plants haven’t been built in US not because investors don’t think there is money to be made in nuclear power - it’s usually because it’s virtually impossible to get one built.
“I may be wrong, but I’m under the impression that our nuclear facilities have never produced the peak energy expected, making reliance on it less secure. Because of the uncertainties of safety, expense, environmental impact, etc., it’s much less attractive from a business standpoint.”
i would say you are wrong. nuclear power currently provides about 20-25% of the energy the US consumes, and it creates that energy more cheaply than oil, natural gas and coal. it’s hardly underperformed. again, the lack of new nuclear facilities being built in this country is not, as you seem to believe, a BUSINESS decision. it’s just that virtually all of them get held up in red tape for a decade or two. the last plant to begin construction was in 1977. the last plant to come on line commercially was in 1996, and that plant was started in 1972. do you really think it was investors that caused the plant to take 24 years to be built and become operational? of course not.
By Jack
August 12, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
Tho moon landing was also staged.
By vince
August 12, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Jack - your rebuttal of “the moon landing was also staged” has nothing at all to do with 9/11 and in case you can’t remember, that is the third time you’ve used that remark. That tells me you are limited in your thinking and you are so afraid that what I’m saying makes real sense, that the only thing you can do is try to change the topic. Sad.
By Ben
August 12, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Just curious Taboga, oh wise one, what exactly am I lying about — you being ignorant or things being ugly in Iraq? Honestly, you are pretty damn ignorant, and unfortunately, things are very ugly in Iraq.
By DB
August 12, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Vince: Could you provide links to these evidence pages? I do admit there are a lot of inconsistencies, but to think Bush could be the only one responsible(or even responsible at all) is a pretty big leap in assumptions. Sure, it may not have been Al Qaeda or whatever, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it had to be our government. And giving Bush a little latitude, I’m sure he just mispoke if the quote is actually real. It’s not the first time he jumbled up some words. As for the seismic data, skyscrapers are attached to bedrock and resonance of large structures could very well create seismic readings, and they simply have a lot more mass over them than the pentagon, which is more than likely part of the bedrock but has less mass to resonate. Also, the velocities of the planes hitting WTC, in all likelyhood, were much higher than the pentagon.
By TusconNative
August 12, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
There is a place here in Arizona where the moon landings were filmed. I can take you there to compare landscapes, just bring some moon-landing pics.
By Scalia
August 12, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Vince, Americans are fragile. You have to tell them things to make them feel good because they cannot handle the truth.
Look at the news. Media from other countries actually show you what is happening, and is not censored. We as Americans want everything filtered and put in a delicate fashion, especially the people in the south. You have to start off with, “I love her to death, but…”
By Jack
August 12, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
No Vince, I’m afraid that what you are saying is NONsense.
By Bruce
August 12, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Vince,
If this evidence is so over-whelming then why is it not repoted on on a daily basis? Seems to me that if it was so damaging there would be more of a fuss being made over it. I mean more than on this blog, of course. If the Bush Administration planned this whole event why would they publish evidence that proved they did on the White House website? If they can carry out plans to destroy the WTC in a matter of minutes, killing thousands, surly they could keep the evidence off the WHITE HOUSE website. Sorry but I don’t buy it. If the Bush Administration can/did plan and carry the killing of thousands of people surly they could snuff out one Stanley Hilton, who has this mountain of evidence. Do you have other proof?
By taboga
August 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
DB,
All that Leftist prattling boils to one thing that you obviously believe: We are to blame - for what others do.
That is the mind-set from which you operate. And because of that, you spout pablum about “Arrogant Foreign Policies”, “China and India joining as superpowers” (and thus our impending doom) and such other nonsense that has abolutely no basis in reality.
You live in the greatest country in the history of the world - and yet you try so desperately to portray everyone else as the peace-lovers of the world; seeking paradise and tranquility — unsuccessful at it though because the bad boys of the U.S. come along and destroy it all.
You’re a blind mouse - not of your choosing - but because you have been taught to be that way.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Ben,
Or is it: Joe?
By DB
August 12, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Ok, moon conspirators. So they can change the gravitional pull in Arizona and create a big dome with a vacuum in which to film it. If you look at the dust from the wheels of the lunar rover in Apollo 15, you’ll notice it’s obvious there is no air resistance in that the dust immediately falls to the earth, i.e., NO ATMOSPHERE. Also, notice there is absolutely no vegetation on the ground, no large rock chunks, and no signs of weathering and erosion(valleys) as in Arizona(bigtime). Also, there are many pockmarks from meteors, which I don’t see in Arizona. Also, when you see astronauts doing the walk, the gravity is obviously much less than the Earth, and don’t tell me there was a string hooked to them. Before you go into a conspiracy mode, please do some research for yourself and pay little attention to others.
By kimberly
August 12, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Vince, keep saying it, Hon. What happened to this country on and since 9-11 REEKS of bulldung. There are more inconsistencies in the “official” story than you’d get from an alcoholic, STD-infested husband with lipstick on his backside. (Sorry. It’s disrespectful to speak of the President that way.)
But the fact is, half the people on these boards have their heads so far up Bill O’Reilly’s poop shoot that they TRULY believe that we (those of us who say, “Hey, wait just a darn minute…”) hate America. Look at the Sheehan board next door. We HATE America, they say. That’s our motivation for all our questions and requests for accountability. It can’t be that we open our eyes and look around, or that we seek a variety of news sources, or that we add up the numbers for ourselves, but NOOOO….. We surely must HATE America, because if we didn’t, we’d be thumping the bible and waving the flag with the rest of the lemmings.
Funny, I was just reading some O’Reilly transcripts on MediaMatters dot org, and whaddyaknow…. VERBATIM.. much of the same garbage spewed on these boards.
By Ben
August 12, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Taboga, It’s Ben. Always has been. Don’t know a Joe!
By DB
August 12, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Taboga: I don’t believe we are to blame. The terrorists are to blame for their actions. Blame is pointless. The fact is that it is happening and has happened, our government is stupid if it thinks it can continue it’s current foreign policy methods and stamp out terrorism. And I don’t believe our government is that stupid. They’ll play the game of making people think they’re fighting it while proceeding in an entirely different agenda.
Moonies: Here’s a pretty good picture of the moon.
http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f29.html
By DB
August 12, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Another one for the moonies:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/spacelevel2/apollo15rover.html
By TT
August 12, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Nice point, Scalia. Most of the conservatives on this blog would rather psych themselves up with the party rhetoric. Just don’t make them think too hard or face up to the facts.
Bla, are you and Taboga the same person? I’ve tried to stick to the topic this week without throwing elbows, but you both keep trying to reel me in with personal insults. I finished graduate school quite a while ago, bla. I work in the corporate world now and I realize that education alone is not the sole path to a promotion. But I also know that I’m better off because I made the effort to keep learning and to meet people outside of the worker bee bubble. School taught me to think critically and to question everything, whether it’s force fed to me by Fox News or repeated all day long on CNN. You have some valid questions. And as long as your opinions are based on logic and you’re not spewing hatred for others on the blog, then I have no right to attack you personally. I would appreciate if you would treat me with the same courtesy.
As for goods produced South of the Border…I do think America workers would have benefited from quotas on cheap goods from other nations. Look at how our textile and steel industries have suffered now that our economy is “globalized” and goods are mass produced cheaply in other countries and imported into the U.S. Americans may have to be willing to pay more for goods made here at home. That’s what real patriotism is—sacrifice.
By Argy
August 12, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
Taboga,
Or is it Boscoe?
By Ben
August 12, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
TT - Did I tell you that I think I love you? lol
By DB
August 12, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Taboga: You are so wrong in your assumptions. I don’t for one second portray everyone else as peace-lovers. I do believe we could do more to prevent war. But, war is necessary in many instances, just not in Iraq. There are only a few countries that actually practice peace. And you contridicted yourself in saying that I thought China and India are our doom? If I thought everyone were peace-lovers, why would I think China and India are our doom? You make no sense. What I do think is that it will be better when we can’t push everyone around so much and create more enemies. The ironic part is that our economy is what is bringing China and India to the forefront, so we’re inviting a global share of power. And it’s also ironic you use the word “prattling” in your own prattling. You should sign up for the military and get into intelligence since you’re so enlightened beyond everyone. We need more people like you who know everything and never falter or never make mistakes, or listen to others(other than righties) for that matter.
You got the best of me, so I’ll avoid responding to you from now on as much as I can.
By R.H.
August 12, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Shaunti Feldhahn points out that no nuclear reactors have been ordered in the US since the ’70s, then says, “No wonder we’ve become overly dependent on foreign oil.” Unless there’s a gasoline-generating nuclear reactor that I don’t know about, this statement is patently ridiculous. I’m surprised that nobody else has pointed this out.
Nuclear reactors produce electricity. While it is possible to produce electricity from oil, it is rarely done — only about 2% of the electricity in the US comes from oil. Nearly all of the oil we consume is used as transportation fuel or converted into lubricants, plastics, and other industrial materials. There’s nothing a nuclear reactor can do to replace oil. They can help us minimize our future dependence on natural gas, but so can any technology that produces electricity (most of the growth in our electricity demand is expected to be met by imported natural gas). However, it’s not clear that nuclear power will wean us from foreign energy sources — last year we imported some 85% of the uranium we used for our existing reactors.
To sum up, reducing dependence on foreign oil is not a valid reason to support new nukes. Minimizing our future dependence on imported natural gas is, but since any method of generating electricity can do it just as well, one must also be able to argue that nukes are the best of the available methods. Finally, it is not clear that one can argue that nukes will make us less dependent on foreign energy sources.
Considering that the President’s rationale for any one part of the energy policy act contradicts the very existence of another part, I am under no illusion that the President is interested in freeing us from foreign energy sources. If that’s really what he wants, then why the huge subsidies for LNG terminals, whose primary use is importing large quantites of natural gas? Why no effort to reduce oil use? Why huge subsidies for corporations making record profits? This administration has made me cynical about politics like no other politician in my lifetime (Nixon included), and I see nothing in this bill but the President’s own self-interest.
By DB
August 12, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
R.H.-Excellent points. I was wondering the same thing. It’s just another example of government duping the ignorant masses. It’s only lobbying that pushes the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear power is a sure way to ensure the creation of more nuclear waste, more nuclear weapons, and more security risks, worldwide. I’m more than willing to rely on coal until other technologies become viable.
By TusconNative
August 12, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
My Arizona comment was a joke. don’t take it too seriously. I was reminded of a national cartoon in Fall, 1969, taking pics of Neil Armstrong and the Flag-planted on the moon, cameramen ready, off on one side was a freeway sign reading “Phoenix, 80 miles”
and if you have ever been out here and seen the landscape?
By TT
August 12, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
I’m glad you’re back Ben, you ole’ liar, you. I wonder if Mr. T holds his breath until he turns blue to get his way? He seems to be a big fan of sticking his fingers in his ears when we say something he doesn’t like. Hopefully, school will start for him next week. You should recruit some of the “we love war” crowd on this blog. Ship them off to Iraq. Let them try their luck with the insurgency, since they’re so tough. I bet they would be the first ones to slink off when the shells started flying.
By dakotawoman
August 12, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
64% of the American people disagree with Iraq at this point. We’ve lost at least 1,800 soldiers and nobody knows how many innocent Iraqis. That is really the way to make friends of the Iraqi people! Democracy at the point of a gun is so right. I can’t just dismiss what Vince is saying, (although I certainly don’t want to believe it), because if 9/11 hadn’t happened, Bush and company wouldn’t have been able to pull off a war they’d been wanting for years. That is the only connection between 9/11 and Iraq. It took 9/11 to make the american people push away memories of Vietnam and agree to another war. Almost all of us, agreed with invading Afghanistan. Going into Iraq has hurt us, and our image around the world, to the point we may never recover. What a blow to our reputation when we pull out of Iraq.
Barbara Slavin, a conservative columnist and a Bush supporter was on C-SPAN recently. One caller asked, if WMD were our rationale for going into Iraq, why didn’t we invade North Korea. She said, with a straight face, that North Korea was in, “…..a much stronger position and really could have retaliated against South Korea and us…” Then she stopped, as if she just realized what she’d said. If Saddam had had the arsenal Bush kept insisting he had we 1) a wouldn’t have invaded out of fear of exactly what we’re afraid would happen with North Korea, and 2) Saddam would have pulled them out and used it on us instead of toppling in three weeks. Simple logic: We would not have invaded Iraq if we really thought there was danger WMD would come back at us.
By Chilao
August 12, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
The National Geographic article I mentioned, After Oil, Future Power did point out that apparently there is only about 50 years of nuclear fuel available. (But just sounded like more of that leftist propoganda related to limited resources.LOL). It appears the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in northern California, shut down in 1989, is now covered with solar panels. At least the land around it.
By Chilao
August 12, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
but it seems there is a complicated/expensive way to revitalize existing nuclear fuel so that it can be reused again and again. The Europeans are fine-tuning the method.
and the article did not state if that 50-years was for just existing nuclear power plants or included future ones. China itself has been building about 2 new nuclear power plants every two years.
By Jack
August 12, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, which presedent were you referring to? Most have lipstick on their a*. Good to hear from you Ben, TT.
By lozen
August 12, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
My laugh of the day! It’s Friday, yay! Everybody have a great weekend.
by Scott C., WO’C’s Children of the Night Correspondent When best-selling author Ann Coulter arrived at Charles Coughlin College in Lynchville, Illinois, Ceci Lawrence was shocked.” She looked so different from her photos,” the 22-year old co-ed marveled.” She had these long, bony fingers, and her skin was all stretched and thin like rice paper, and I remember thinking during her speech: she looks like a talking kite.” It was then that Ceci and several of her sorority sisters resolved to do something for their distinguished visitor. “We decided to have a blood drive,” Ceci said, “So that Ann could renew the unholy forces which animate her flesh by bathing in the blood of the innocent. Let’s face itâ€â€?she travels all the time and that’s got to play havoc with any sort of rigorous beauty regimen. After all, the average human body only contains six quarts of blood, so you can imagine how many virgins it would take to fill up even one of those crappy little tubs at the Ramada Inn. I mean, come onâ€â€?she can’t just keep dropping by Townhall.com and draining Ben Shapiro for a pintâ€â€?he’s starting to look bleached.” Finding a sufficient number of uncontaminated maidens, even on the campus of a conservative bible college, proved to be a chore. “Yeah,” observed Ceci. “It was a lot of work, but it was worth it. Ann is my role model.” Ceci explained that she began college as a Speech Communications major. “I wanted to be on TV, so I was studying to be a spokesmodel. My dad wanted me to be a lawyer, but that was like way too much work, thank you very much. But then I saw Ann on Fox News, and realized that you could be a lawyer even if you didn’t practice law, or go to court, or know anything about the constitution. And even better, people would like…pay you to go on TV and say b*** stuff about people! It’s like somebody saying, ‘Hey! Spreading rumors that all the smart girls are lesbians and then locking yourself in your dorm room and masturbating to Whittaker Chamber’s Witness is actually a job. We’ll pay you for that!’ My god! Having Fox News in your life is like having a rich boyfriend who’s too Episcopalian to demand a handjob! Anywat… The very next day I switched my major, and next year after I graduate, I hope to follow in Ann’s footsteps and attend the Barbizon School of Law.” Asked if the arduous, daylong blood drive was worth it, Ceci was unequivocal. “Absolutely! For one thing, Ann and I have become very friendly as a result. And for another, I’m pretty sure that if she’d gone one more day without blood she would have started killing my roommates.” And how does Ann Coulter herself feel about this outpouring of admiration and blood? The blanched and hollow-eyed pundit flashed an enthusiastic thumbs-up as she lowered her emaciated carcass into a hip-bath brimming with virgin gore. “Ahh,” she said, splashing the ruddy, life-giving fluid over her bony chest, “This is the life. Or the undeath, anyway.”
By taboga
August 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
And now we have Dakotawoman out here - trying hard to agree with Vince’s theory!
I am beginning to see why you Leftists refer to George Bush as: Dumb-Dubya.
I mean, this guy has to fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon (where his SECDEF was at the time), start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; getting hundreds of Americans killed, establish a new government in both Afghanistan and Iraq…
…All so that he could get his hands on: Oil.
How stupid, huh? When all Bush and his neo-cons had to do: Buddy-up with Saddam, let him take Kuwait’s oil, sell to “big oil” all they want - and let us pay for it at the pump!
I am beginning to see why all of you who are out there uncovering all the secret plots — call him “Dumb-Dubya”!
By DB
August 12, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Tuscon: It’s a relief you were only joking!
Chilao: There’s a whole lot more than 50 years of nuclear fuel to mine. It’s practically unlimited. But locations for storage of waste are not. It’s nuclear reactors that don’t last more than 50 years as they get less reliable with age. The bombardment of radiation over time physically breaks the system down, especially the reactor vessel, and they’ll have to keep building new ones. Also, nuclear power isn’t as cheap as someone early posted. Most power plants wouldn’t even be able to be built if it weren’t for government support. The initial investment is extraordinarily large. Coal and scrubbers are much cheaper and much better for the time-being. Also, if anyone supports starting up reactors, ask them if they’d be willing to live within 20 miles of one. That’s where you find the real truth. It’s just like the conservatives and war; they would never go on the frontlines but promote it from afar. Or take Bush for example. Being two years younger than Kerry, Bush had the chance to serve his country in Vietnam. It’s no accident he was allegedly in the National Guard instead(good connections). But he’s the first to promote war. Then there’s the audacity to badtalk someone who was actually at Vietnam. I’m not a Kerry fan, but actions speak much more loudly than words. I don’t trust any politician.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Anyone been over to the “Cindy Sheehan” blog?
About all the Leftists have left is an insane attempt to piggy-back a deranged woman in a Crawford, Tx. ditch.
And they’re howling at the moon!
By Jack
August 12, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Next week we should talk about the fair tax. That should stir up some good debate. Everyone have a good weekend.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
Have you noticed how Leftists will constantly remind everyone how much they supported the war in Afghanistan?
It’s just the war in Iraq that they are against. And they will constantly throw out the “If you support the war in Iraq - why don’t you join-up and go over there!” line…
…Ask them if they joined the military to fight in the war in Afghanistan, or if they intend on joining and fighting in: Afghanistan*.
It would seem to me, that they support a war that they’re unwilling to participate in, doesn’t it?
By lozen
August 12, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Anybody who would make fun of Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq does not have one compassionate bone in their body and needs help big time! It’s obvious you haven’t lost anything or anybody and somebody needs to kick your smart a* to Iraq!
By Crystal
August 12, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Well, how about that? This week’s topic is mud wrestling. Oops—sorry—it is energy and President Bush.
So far we have heard from Stalin, Gene’s dog, Goldwater, North Korea, Mr. Prather, Lozen’s LitterBox and Vince who is still looking for Judge Crater and his gas balloon that flew into the Pentagon.
Thank goodness for taboga, a voice crying in the “lefty” wilderness, a “politically incorrect” patriot. Taboga writes about the USA: “You live in the greatest country in the history of the world.” Bravo, taboga. You speak the truth.
And a brief note here for “Native”: The city in Arizona that you claim is one of my favorite “hang-outs”, Sonoran Desert, et al. It is spelled TUCSON.
Until next week’s battle of wits and weird ones, STAY SWEET!
By blablabla
August 12, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
tt: of course taboga and i are different people. and if you want to have a civil discussion, cool, i’m all ears. i just happen to recall that last week i asked some questions you didn’t like and you decided to throw the first punches at me, so i called you out on it and said it was ridiculous. it was and it still is. but i’m happy to move on.
As for the idea that American workers would be better off if there were quotas for cheaply made goods - I guess the issue I have with that is that perhaps some of those manufacturing jobs in the US would have been saved, but instead of a pair of athletic socks costing $0.25 made in China, they cost $2.00 because they’re made here. Or a T-shirt now costs $7.00 each instead of $1.00. So the worker gets to keep his job but everything costs more across the board for everybody else, including the worker? I don’t think that will improve the life of the worker in the long run.
Look how much bit$hiting people are doing about $2.50/gallon for gas - now extrapolate that out to everybody bit$hing about the price of everything. quotas like that can be extremely inflationary for everyone.
I agree that patriotism includes making sacrifices, i’m just not convinced that’s a very wise sacrifice for us to make. I’ll take your example of textile jobs. Textile jobs were originally centered in the northeast, then moved to the southeast b/c of cheaper labor. over time they moved offseas as the cost of labor became more compelling vis a vis the investment to automate the production of textiles. that’s basic free market economics - that’s comparative advantage. those textile jobs are lost or destroyed. but over our history, the US has lost/destroyed millions upon millions of jobs. but at the same time, even more new jobs were created to take their place. look at how our economy has changed over the last 200 years, from agrarian to industrial, to manufacturing, to services and technology.
the people who lose in situations like this are the people who are not well educated who can’t adapt to new job skills required in the marketplace. they can’t compete and so they get left behind. that’s why i’d advocate taking the efforts and the dollars you’d invest in establishing and policing quotas (and the economic loss associated therewith) and invest it in education. instead of being more protectionist, we could maintain our free market economy and have more competitive workers.
By TusconNative
August 12, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
my point exactly.heheheheheheheheh
been there many times myself
By Tim
August 12, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
it’s official… Crystal is as stupid as I thought
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
I am a Viet-Nam vet and currently have two nephews that are active duty military. I have stated that I wanted to speak about the issues and not call names, but, you have gone to the point of disgrace. I can say to you that you are lower than whale gravy where you would put your political views ahead of your human compassion; and you call yourself an American?
I call you a MAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By lozen
August 12, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Now we have Crystal’s weekly fly-by on her broom looking down her nose at everybody except Toe goober! Ha, ha, ha! But Cretin-Crystal, I agree with you on one thing - this is a great country. It’s not perfect. Being able to disagree with bad leadership is one of the things that makes this a great country. Don’t you agree? The frat boy with the empty eyes and head, and his puppet masters certainly aren’t great or perfect.
By OurPrez
August 12, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
don’t forget former coke-head. only in America. Yes, the Greatest Country ever. and if the rest of the world hates us, must be doing Everything right.
By DB
August 12, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
And the right-wingers will constantly call you unpatriotic if you disagree with any single idea of the conservative cult. The leftists disagree with everything the conservatives say, and vise-versa. The moderates get clumped into the left by conservatives(and the right by liberals) just because they disagree with a few things. At least the liberals don’t go around insulting everyone with whom they disagree. Liberals need to get a backbone, and conservatives need to start thinking for themselves and get a little more flexible. Our vertbral column is both rigid and flexible for a reason. It needs to keep us upright but able to bend at the same time. Let the pendulum swing.
Jackie: I’m with you all the way.
Taboga: One last question. Is your last name Wooten? You have similar writing styles and similar assumptions. Or are you just a fan? That may explain why you live on this blog. I agree with some things, but not all.
By Dakotawoman
August 12, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Try turning off the sound next time and just look into those empty eyes. See if you really get any feeling there for the young men who are dying in Iraq or for those grieving for their sons and daughters. Don’t listen to what he says, just look into the mirrors of his soul.
By dan
August 12, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
it ought to be clear to anyone that we have no energy policy. As long as we continue to say alternatives are expensive, this just shows how ignorant we truly are. The cost of relying on other nations to supply us dirty oil is what’s really expensive-economically, environmentally, and politically. Just think what could have been done if instead of spending billions in Iraq we directed that money to developing alternative sources.
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
DB,
Great minds think alike! I think Taboga is JIM WOOTEN. Like the old folks say, he has a habit of “throwing the rock and hiding his hand.” Sounds like a person of diminished principles and lack of backbone.
By blablabla
August 12, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
DB: “At least the liberals don’t go around insulting everyone with whom they disagree.”
you must be new to the blog. the liberals can sling mud and call names with the best of them. in fact, i’d say they’re better at the insults than the conservatives on this board.
By lozen
August 12, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
I agree with DB. Two good examples are Bill Moyers for the “libruls” and Hannity for the righters. Bill had conservatives on his show and listened to what they had to say although he disagreed. Can you imagine Hannity doing that? BTW, you realize don’t you Randy that Cindy Sheehan’s son was aborted in the 96th trimester don’t you? Where’s you outrage?
By joe
August 12, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Yeah he’s a MAGGOT for sure. And he ought to have his a* kicked to Iraq and then somebody to hold him down so he can’t run! Put his cajones where his mouth is!
By Crystal
August 12, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Ah yes, Lozen, but it takes one to know one. I also have a black cat. As to your references to the “frat boy”, don’t worry. Kerry lost the race.
I believe in free speech including honest dissent. But lies, unfounded rumors, misquotes, rote repetitions and plain hallucinations wreck the higher aspirations of free speech. That can only be called propaganda because it is presented only to cause damage, not a truth.
Both political parties do some of this. But Democrats seem determined to tear apart the country just to “get” George W. Bush, our legally elected president. Democrats seem willing to forget tomorrow’s terrorists by undermining the Iraq War. That is inexcusable. I am not talking about Mrs. Sheehan because she is in the depths of irrational despair over the loss of her son. That is understandable dissent to war in its anguish. But the alternative to this war is the same anguish being administered to total populations, eventually Americans.
Use your head. Do you want this country to fall? Then stop acting like you hate it while saying you love it.
By Bruce
August 12, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Have a good weekend all…..
By Jack
August 12, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
The dems didn’t win cause all they did was trash Bush. No new ideas. Give us some ideas. Put the mud down. You will never win simply by slinging mud. America is too smart for that.
By Tim
August 12, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Do you want this country to fall?
dang lozen I wish I was as powerful as you
STUPID STUPID STUPID
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Crystal,
Your logic is the same that has been used previously and I might say, to an effective conclusion. Saddam Hussein and Iraq have never and will never cause this country to fail; his country NEVER had enough military power to concern the Pentagon about him causing problems for us. He was an irritant. When the 9/11 attacks occured, did the republic fail and mass mayhem take place? Our constitutional principals were well understood by all and we went forward from that point. We have over 43,000 people killed on our highways each year, yet, we do not stop driving.
By Tim
August 12, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
You will never win simply by slinging mud. America is too smart for that
I thought that is how Bush got elected?
By kimberly
August 12, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Crystal, what were you like before you underwent the Stepford Wife transformation? Did you eat, laugh, s—t, and cry like real humans before your brain chip was programmed to repeat audio clips from last year’s Repugnican convention?
By Jack
August 12, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
You thought wrong.
By Jack
August 12, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
I sorry. Bush stole the election. Yeah thats right. In 2000 as well as 2004. Guess he’s smarter than we thought.
By lozen
August 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
I don’t want to see this country fall. I want to see this country live up to its highest ideals. More and more of the people in this country don’t believe the war in Iraq was necessary. That does not mean we all (62% of us now…?) hate this country! You see lies where I see honest criticism. So stop acting like you hate free speech while saying you love it!
By taboga
August 12, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Jackie,
I couldn’t care less about your Vietnam Vet status - nor what any of your nephews are doing.
Additionally, it is irrelevant to me why and what you come out here on this board to do - and I will damn well do as I please!
Now, you can go over there and get in line with the rest of the Leftist freaks!
By Tim
August 12, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
oh ok Jack… I will relay that to John McCain
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
Once a MAGGOT, ALWAYS A MAGGOT!!!!!!!! Oh yes, did I hear you say that you are going to your local recruiting office to help out Dubya and his war to save the republic? Whale gravy person!!!!!!!!
By Crystal
August 12, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Yes, Kimberly, my brain chip was installed by loving smart parents. Some call it DNA. Better to have sane direction than one that is totally fried. How are things at Little Five Points?
By Jack
August 12, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Is whale gravy good on potatoes?
By taboga
August 12, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Anybody who would make fun of Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq does not have one compassionate bone in their body and needs help big time! It’s obvious you haven’t lost anything or anybody and somebody needs to kick your smart as to Iraq!*
I haven’t forgot about you Lozen.
I need no lectures from Leftist filth about compassion! You pieces of trash discredit every service member; living or dead - every single day!
The overwhelming vast majority of people who have lost their family members are damn proud of what their sons have done and it doesn’t bother you human feces one bit to discredit what they died for!
So don’t you come out here pretending concern for some deranged woman who is being duped in to putting on a dog and pony show for the Lefist traitors!
By Tim
August 12, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Some call it DNA
good to know stupidity is hereditary
By taboga
August 12, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Na, na, na, na, na. You can’t make me! I have so much respect for the people fighting for our country and protecting me. No, no, on second thought when it comes down to individuals doing that, I don’t give a f—- about them. You just try putting my cajones in my mouth, you vet! My daddy is bigger than your daddy. My daddy can whup your daddy! You can’t make me! Na, na, na, na, na.
By kimberly
August 12, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Haha… Good comeback C. But I live in a place of gluttonous sin, the very heart of greed, selfishness, and hypocracy in Georgia: North Fulton. The fumes from the Hummers in the drop-off lane at school are really something. The kids are all obsessed with such values as Louis Vitton purses, iPods, and who’s getting a Jaguar for their 16th birthday. Those Hummers are purchased with Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, while our soldiers do without what they really need in this war. But those $1.99 magnets supporting the troops really mean alot to kids whose last meal is an MRE in the desert.
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Jack,
LOL - Ask taboga
By ThoughtsAgain
August 12, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
careful, Taboga will have to do another restroom break wink wink with all that Maggot talk. might even have a heart-attack.
was: I couldn’t care less about your Vietnam Vet status - nor what any of your nephews are doing
a fancy way of saying Taboga has no war/combat experience?
By taboga
August 12, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
I see little Joey is posting under my name again.
Hilarious little booger-eater…
By Maria
August 12, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
No idea of Bush is a good idea.
How about asking Bush why he dismantled a bill Clinton had put in place that put a cap on what the energy companies could charge. The cap was lifted almost one month after Bush’s first term in office.
Not only that on April 24, 02 Bush visited the South Dakota Ethanol Plant. And Bush statedâ€? I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause). I support it now, because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”
According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. - Talk about a slap in the face.
By taboga
August 12, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
End of another losing week for the Communists. They’re holding on to the hopes that a deranged woman in a ditch is going to turn it all around for them.
Time to relax on the lake this weekend with a T-bone on the grill and a few cold ones. If any of you Communists happen to be up at the lake, look for the guy with the new SUV and all the good looking women around him — that’ll be ol’ Taboga.
If you guys have enough gas money for your Yugo - come on up!
By Maria
August 12, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
No idea of Bush is a good idea.
How about asking Bush why he dismantled a bill Clinton had put in place that put a cap on what the energy companies could charge. The cap was lifted almost one month after Bush’s first term in office.
Not only that on April 24, 02 Bush visited the South Dakota Ethanol Plant. And Bush statedâ€? I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause). I support it now, because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”
According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. - Talk about a slap in the face.
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
I need no lectures from Leftist filth about compassion! You pieces of trash discredit every service member; living or dead - every single day!
The overwhelming vast majority of people who have lost their family members are damn proud of what their sons have done and it doesn’t bother you human feces one bit to discredit what they died for!
So don’t you come out here pretending concern for some deranged woman who is being duped in to putting on a dog and pony show for the Lefist traitors!
Does this mean that you have signed up for military service? You could become a member of the officer corps and eventually get promoted to General-grade whereby you could help make policy.
Is that what you are implying, MAGGOT???
By Maria
August 12, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
No idea of Bush is a good idea.
How about asking Bush why he dismantled a bill Clinton had put in place that put a cap on what the energy companies could charge. The cap was lifted almost one month after Bush first term in office.
Not only that on April 24, 02 Bush visited the South Dakota Ethanol Plant. And Bush statedâ€? I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause). I support it now, because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”
According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. - Talk about a slap in the face .
By Netbanker
August 12, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Hey all! Life has just sucked this month which is why I haven’t been around and still likely won’t be much. For the first time in 17 years I don’t have any furry creatures doing the happy dance when I get home from work. My beloved dog was diagnosed with cancer last week and I had to put him down. Even though I am greatful to have been able to spare my boy pain and suffering the experience has severely dimmed the light of joy in my heart.
OK…time to buck up…I have to agree with dan…we have no real energy policy. With most of our oil going for transporation the current energy bill does next to nil to improve or address transportation energy consumption. We can build all the nuclear power plants we want to, but it won’t affect our oil addiction in the slightest. Where are the mandates for higher fuel efficiency for trucks? Why aren’t we building out public transportation to provide an alternative? And
I skimmed through comments and those about biodeisel I thought were very on target. Brazil (yes, Brazil for god’s sake) has all their vehicles running on ethanol, methanol, and/or bio-diesel fuels. If they can do it why haven’t we? Why not eliminate farm subsidies since we’ll now need the corn and soybeans , add some high tech jobs to rural states by producing the fuels in the areas in which the raw materials are grown, etc? Why not stop giving the tax breaks to the oil companies? Hey…don’t conservatives believe in the free market? How about some competition for Big Oil?
Why aren’t we providing tax breaks to the companies that are producing solar cell roof shingles and higher tax incentives to individuals who choose to buy them or how about good tax incentives to home builders and roofing companies to install them? Today they’re kind of expensive, but also last for 20 yrs and can put electricity back onto the grid during sunny periods. California power companies have been suppportive of these measures because the houses out there that have them are putting a fair amount of electricity onto the grid during the day when residences are not using much electricity but there is an increased demand from commercial properties. This extra power to the grid has meant that CA power companies have not had to increase production or ‘import’ (ala Enron) power nor do they need to consider building additional plants since new homes are not placing a new burden on the grid.
There is also an anti-terrorist reason to encourage solar shingles and having agri-businesses recycle their wastes to produce engery. If a power plant were to be taken out of commission today the economy for the area supplied with electric would crumble since we are reliant on electricity to run our modern eCommerce nation. With enough individual homes, businesses, and large agri-businesses feeding the grid we could at least limp along instead of being completely without power.
By Maria
August 12, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
To support our military is bringing our son’s, daughter’s, husband’s, wive’s, father’s and mother’s home.
By Crystal
August 12, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
You say you live in a place of gluttonous sin, Kimberly? What a surprise! As to what our soldiers in Iraq need? That’s easy. Support from home. They’ve got plenty of MREs. Repeat after me. Support from home. There. You got it.
By kimberly
August 12, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Crystal, I live there for the SCHOOLS… DUH. I can’t STAND the yuppie materialistic, gossipy, narcissistic environment, but I struggle to live there while my child is in SCHOOL, because, as you know, poor neighborhoods get shorted on the “equal education” principle.
Soldiers don’t need a thing from ME. They need to be home protecting us HERE, and getting the love of their families.
By Jackie
August 12, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this
Crystal,
I know that having the proper equipment and the plan to defeat those you are fighting is much more important than to concern yourself with what someone at home thinks. Because you wish for something to be true does not make it happen.
Unfortunately, your offering your verbal support to the troops does nothing to prevent their deaths and injuries.
By joe
August 12, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this
A MAGGOT is a MAGGOT is a MAGGOT crawling around in dog s** (Oh excuuuuuuusse me, FECES), and eating it and then puking out their filth on vets and soldiers and women and anybody who disagrees with their ignorant rants. Can we please get a priest who can exorcize the demons from this…this…whatever it is!