View Full Version : The GOP convention and Isaac
What a problem they might have with Isaac (hurricane) potentially heading towards Tampa. I'm glad I'm not in charge of that! What a mess that could be.
Oh my! Yes... I hope everyone can stay safe... might do the R bigwigs good to understand what hurricane devastation can do to a community, since the abandonment of the Gulf region.
... might do the R bigwigs good to understand what hurricane devastation can do to a community, since the abandonment of the Gulf region.
Damned Republicans!
Damned Republicans!
It was under Bush that the Gulf was abandoned. However, I haven't seen much action from the D's either. Nonetheless, the current GOP does not represent working folks IMHO. I used to have respect for the the GOP. The leadership needs to see suffering first hand, maybe experience it themselves for a change.
It was under Bush that the Gulf was abandoned. However, I haven't seen much action from the D's either. Nonetheless, the current GOP does not represent working folks IMHO. I used to have respect for the the GOP. The leadership needs to see suffering first hand, maybe experience it themselves for a change.
And people wonder why the political environment is so toxic.
And people wonder why the political environment is so toxic.
I am not making the connection... Is it my statement that I don't respect the current GOP leadership?
gimmethesimplelife
8-24-12, 8:34am
It was under Bush that the Gulf was abandoned. However, I haven't seen much action from the D's either. Nonetheless, the current GOP does not represent working folks IMHO. I used to have respect for the the GOP. The leadership needs to see suffering first hand, maybe experience it themselves for a change.+1
The leadership needs to see suffering first hand, maybe experience it themselves for a change.
I heard it reported this morning that Isaac is failing to pick up steam and is remaining a tropical storm rather than becoming a full fledged hurricane.
It's a shame, so much wasted potential.
gimmethesimplelife
8-24-12, 9:07am
I heard it reported this morning that Isaac is failing to pick up steam and is remaining a tropical storm rather than becoming a full fledged hurricane.
It's a shame, so much wasted potential.I do agree it is wasted potential - I would be thrilled for the GOP leadership to experience the suffering and fear from a major hurricane. Karma maybe? My problem is that the GOP leadership is far too immune from the drawbacks of US citizenship - from things that ordinary everyday working Tampa folks would have to deal with in the event of a devastating hurricane. And far too likely to vote to cut off assistance to such folks to fund tax cuts for the upper strata. I consider myself a fairly decent person but there is a dark side of me that would like to see some suffering drift UP the food chain - it's high time IMHO.....Rob
I do agree it is wasted potential - I would be thrilled for the GOP leadership to experience the suffering and fear from a major hurricane. Karma maybe? My problem is that the GOP leadership is far too immune from the drawbacks of US citizenship - from things that ordinary everyday working Tampa folks would have to deal with in the event of a devastating hurricane. And far too likely to vote to cut off assistance to such folks to fund tax cuts for the upper strata. I consider myself a fairly decent person but there is a dark side of me that would like to see some suffering drift UP the food chain - it's high time IMHO.....Rob
Maybe next time?
It was under Bush that the Gulf was abandoned. However, I haven't seen much action from the D's either. Nonetheless, the current GOP does not represent working folks IMHO. I used to have respect for the the GOP. The leadership needs to see suffering first hand, maybe experience it themselves for a change.
I agree with you. Considering their draconian platform...for the poor, sick and elderly that is, they could use a time of living off welfare, no health care or maybe just a voucher for health insurance (but only when they are 80 with bad hips, heart, knees, teeth, etc... and unable to work)
But, at least we can all take comfort in the knowledge that the wealthy, Romney first, will not have to live under their oh so oppressive tax burden! Yeah, we're taking care of them first! Then if there is anything left over... but, there probably won't be.:(
I suppose the poor women can just use that magic internal spermicide we apparently possess (to utilize during 'legitimate' rape) and just not have kids. That'll save some money, won't it.;)
Don't ya just love the republican platform! I can't wait until next week to see what wonderful things they have planned for us!
gimmethesimplelife
8-24-12, 9:14am
Maybe next time?LOL who knows? Rob
I do agree it is wasted potential - I would be thrilled for the GOP leadership to experience the suffering and fear from a major hurricane. Karma maybe?
Gotta be a little careful, Rob. The whacky karma sword has double edges...
gimmethesimplelife
8-24-12, 9:45am
Gotta be a little careful, Rob. The whacky karma sword has double edges...Maybe you have a point.....I'm sure not the entity in charge of doling out karma if any indeed is.....Rob
All I'm sure of is that if Isaac style karma whacked a couple hundred GOP leaders who were temporarily hunkered down in Tampa it would also whack a half a million or so worker bees who make Tampa home. And some of them are Democrats! It might be better to just put up a yard sign.
All I'm sure of is that if Isaac style karma whacked a couple hundred GOP leaders who were temporarily hunkered down in Tampa it would also whack a half a million or so worker bees who make Tampa home. And some of them are Democrats! It might be better to just put up a yard sign.
Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!
I'm not wishing a hurricane on anyone. There are a lot of wonderful people who'll be in Tampa for the convention....people committed to making America better, albeit with their own vision of how that looks. Mine might differ, but I love the freedom we have to each put our own spin on that, frustrating though it might be at times for everybody.
What a logistical nightmare for event planners, though. Yeeeeeeesh.
All I'm sure of is that if Isaac style karma whacked a couple hundred GOP leaders who were temporarily hunkered down in Tampa it would also whack a half a million or so worker bees who make Tampa home. And some of them are Democrats! It might be better to just put up a yard sign.
Yes. Wrathful winds seems fairly non-specific for a hate fantasy. Wouldn't the time be better spent conjuring up food poisoning or a roof collapse?
Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!
And people wonder why the political environment is so toxic.
Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!
History will bear them out.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mXOJsfJyd74/Sh8IGZl1_9I/AAAAAAAACOk/zzKrywr50lY/s400/Obamas+new+america.jpg
http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/soviet_posters/keep_kulaks_out_of_collective_farms_1930_b.jpg
And people wonder why the political environment is so toxic.
I know, right?
Let me repeat, 'Damned Republicans!'
gimmethesimplelife
8-24-12, 1:21pm
Just wanted to state here that I am not really wishing an epic hurricane on anyone - I'm only just really frustrated by how immune the top GOP are to the consequences, economic and otherwise, of such an event. To be honest, though, the top Dems are also insulated from reality at this level, I just give them more of a pass as they are less likely to cut off assistance for those not so fortunate as to be immune. Rob
I know, right?
Let me repeat, 'Damned Republicans!'
And let me ask again, what about my original comment did you find contributes to a toxic political environment?
And let me ask again, what about my original comment did you find contributes to a toxic political environment?
What if we wished terrorists would successfully attack the Democratic convention so that Democrats would support more defense spending? Damn Democrats, nothing like a little suffering to get their heads straight on the issues.
But the moral winds are fickle, just ask Pat Robertson.
San Onofre Guy
8-24-12, 3:04pm
I think I recall hearing some right winger say that Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for their wild hedonistic ways.
Can you say payback is rough?
I think I recall hearing some right winger say that Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for their wild hedonistic ways.
That is exactly where my mind went as well.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
And I am speaking metaphorically.... I do not wish a hurricane on anyone.
Just imagine all of the political war rooms with their pants in a bunch. If we go, what kind of message are we sending? If we don't go, what kind of message are we sending?
I've got the results from the focus groups. And on and on and on....
And let me ask again, what about my original comment did you find contributes to a toxic political environment?
Oh, just a rememberance of the 8 months I spent in New Orleans, Gulfport MS and Pascagoula MS immediately after Katrina. Those three devastated areas rebounded at a vastly different pace, and for good reason, which had nothing to do with the GOP (actually those areas under GOP governance had a much easier time recovering). But, let's just throw out hyperbolic nonsense anyway cause heaven knows it's fun to wish misfortune and misery on those we disagree with. It's an election year after all.
I think I recall hearing some right winger say that Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for their wild hedonistic ways.
Can you say payback is rough?
IMHO anyone who said that is an idiot. Why anyone would seek to become their moral equivalent is beyond me.
And let me ask again, what about my original comment did you find contributes to a toxic political environment?
Well.....just to try on my devil's advocate chapeau, I suppose the question is whether you would have still made the comment had it been the Democratic convention being held in Tampa? The implications here are that you likely would not have. Just sayin'.
IMHO anyone who said that is an idiot. Why anyone would seek to become their moral equivalent is beyond me.
We are rife with idiots on this issue:
"Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson." (http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/13/religious-conservatives-claim-katrina-was-gods/133804)
"Hagee Says Hurricane Katrina Struck New Orleans Because It Was ‘Planning A Sinful’ ‘Homosexual Rally’"
(http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/04/23/22152/hagee-katrina-mccain/)
Oh, heck, here's a whole page of them, from Al-Qaeda to the man on the street; take your pick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_as_divine_retribution
Nutty as a whole cupboard-ful of fruitcakes.
I have to go take a good hot shower to scrub some of that stuff off me. Ick.
Maybe bae will give us hourly updates on wind 'n rain 'n Republicans at the convention. 'Course bae may get blown away, too. Is he part of the Republican leadership who needs to be taught a lesson? I wonder. I guess he's a Good Republican. It's a fine thing for some of you to have one as your friend, you can trot that out to show how broadminded you are when needed.
No, but maybe he IS a part of the republicans for Ron Paul who need to be taught a lesson.
Mitt doesn't have to play by the rules, and it's high time ALL republicans learn that.
He doesn't have to show his taxes
He doesn't have to answer any tough questions
And he WILL be the nominee, period.
cause he deserves it....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/mitt-romney-nomination_n_1827289.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
ApatheticNoMore
8-25-12, 10:05pm
Bae wouldn't be a bad Republican to vote for even if just because he seems to care about environmental issues. If that was part of the Republican party plank the plank would be improved 100 fold just by that alone. I'm not holding my breath.
Well the republicans have cancelled monday's festivities with the Tropical Storm Isaac. At least they will still have the rest of the week.
iris lily
8-25-12, 10:34pm
No, but maybe he IS a part of the republicans for Ron Paul who need to be taught a lesson.
[url]
Why doesn't this surprise me.
mtnlaurel
8-25-12, 10:56pm
Bae - I kind of forgot you were going to this. Please travel safely.
gimmethesimplelife
8-25-12, 11:27pm
Bae - I kind of forgot you were going to this. Please travel safely.+1....There seems to be a lot of anger towards both political parties right now.....If you are going BAE just be aware and be safe, which I am sure you would anyhow.....I'm no Republican but if the GOP convention floats your boat, enjoy! Rob
Letterman said that republicans know how to deal with hurricanes. He said they had a big one in 2004: Hurricane Sarah.
Letterman said that republicans know how to deal with hurricanes. He said they had a big one in 2004: Hurricane Sarah.
I thought Letterman was brighter than that.
I'm sorry I started this thread. All I was referring to was the challenge of having a huge meeting in the path of a hurricane......
I should have known better........
I'm sorry I started this thread. All I was referring to was the challenge of having a huge meeting in the path of a hurricane......
I should have known better........
Cathy--I agree. I think it's just better to avoid the "simple public policy" forum altogether. I had been doing a little engaging on political topics but quickly found out that it's no more than the righties thoughtlessly spouting their rhetoric and the lefties vehemently defending with their rhetoric and NO ONE listening to anything the prior poster said beyond a running theme apparently going through their minds "I'm reading what this person is saying...now how do I contradict what they said? What little bit of minutiae can can I run with here to twist and reaffirm my point?"
And you never hear a "wow, that was a good point" or "I never thought of it that way." Only, "well leave it to you to say something like that" or "I expected more out of you" or "you just don't get it, do you?" It's really depressing noise and amounts to little more than stupid, pointless bickering. It rarely rises to the level of sophisticated political argument that they're aiming for. At least I guess that's what they're aiming for.
gimmethesimplelife
8-26-12, 10:23am
Cathy--I agree. I think it's just better to avoid the "simple public policy" forum altogether. I had been doing a little engaging on political topics but quickly found out that it's no more than the righties thoughtlessly spouting their rhetoric and the lefties vehemently defending with their rhetoric and NO ONE listening to anything the prior poster said beyond a running theme apparently going through their minds "I'm reading what this person is saying...now how do I contradict what they said? What little bit of minutiae can can I run with here to twist and reaffirm my point?"
And you never hear a "wow, that was a good point" or "I never thought of it that way." Only, "well leave it to you to say something like that" or "I expected more out of you" or "you just don't get it, do you?" It's really depressing noise and amounts to little more than stupid, pointless bickering. It rarely rises to the level of sophisticated political argument that they're aiming for. At least I guess that's what they're aiming for.I agree with much of what you have said here and have to admit I'm guilty of some of this myself.....That being said, for those of us who have been here awhile, such as myself and Iris Lilly and a few others, this corner of the board is much more civil than it once was - OUCH it used to be nasty. And there were some pretty intnese trolls who would linger around here trying to get a reaction. Seriously, now we have our righties and our lefties and sure they are not going to agree but the overall tone is much more civil. Just last week I found myself agreeing a few times with one poster here who I thought I would NEVER have anything in common with politcally, so you just never know. There are a couple of people who post here who I just dont understand - but I do support their right to express their opinions and I do believe they support my such right - though they may not agree with me. And mavbe in an area that tends to controversy such as this, this is as good as it is likely going to get (?) Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-26-12, 10:29am
I thought Letterman was brighter than that.Just curious, has Letterman ever stated where he stands politically? I'm guessing left.....As I remember back in 2008 he grilled McCain pretty bad for blowing off his show.....Apparenty he was supposed to be a guest on Letteman and went and did some other appearance in the same building in NYC and went and blew Letterman off and Letterman was less the pleased about it. Rob
mtnlaurel
8-26-12, 10:35am
I agree with much of what you have said here and have to admit I'm guilty of some of this myself.....That being said, for those of us who have been here awhile, such as myself and Iris Lilly and a few others, this corner of the board is much more civil than it once was - OUCH it used to be nasty. And there were some pretty intnese trolls who would linger around here trying to get a reaction. Seriously, now we have our righties and our lefties and sure they are not going to agree but the overall tone is much more civil. Just last week I found myself agreeing a few times with one poster here who I thought I would NEVER have anything in common with politcally, so you just never know. There are a couple of people who post here who I just dont understand - but I do support their right to express their opinions and I do believe they support my such right - though they may not agree with me. And mavbe in an area that tends to controversy such as this, this is as good as it is likely going to get (?) Rob
+1
I have memories of what I call sanctimonious meanness all over the forums a long while back.
Like you wouldn't dare poke your head out for fear of it getting shot off, even in something as innocuous as the Hobbies Forum.
Or people trying to Super Judge on the Family Forum where people pour out their hearts.
If we should ever get really hard up for $ for the forums, I would suggest a Mud Wrestling Event featuring the Political Forum Usual Suspects, that I would work into my budget! :)
These are really frustrating political times. I trust the people here enough to throw a little metaphorical mud and feel safe and like I can come back whenever I want to Tango.
And I love that there are people here who just stick to their guns and duke it out, so wishy-washies such as myself can weigh both sides.
Miss Cellane
8-26-12, 11:31am
I heard it reported this morning that Isaac is failing to pick up steam and is remaining a tropical storm rather than becoming a full fledged hurricane.
It's a shame, so much wasted potential.
Tropical Storm Irene laid waste to large sections of Vermont and New York state. Many farmers are still recovering. Just sayin'.
Just curious, has Letterman ever stated where he stands politically? I'm guessing left.....As I remember back in 2008 he grilled McCain pretty bad for blowing off his show.....Apparenty he was supposed to be a guest on Letteman and went and did some other appearance in the same building in NYC and went and blew Letterman off and Letterman was less the pleased about it. Rob
I remember that. I think what got Letterman's goat wasn't that he is particularly political, but that McCain said the reason he had to cancel at the last moment was because he needed to jet back to Washington to do some important thing or other, then Letterman finds out he is in that very building doing some other interview. I think it was being lied to that made him mad, rightfully so I thought. It was also another sad peek into the vanishing integrity of a once very honorable man.
Politics makes people do things they wouldn't ordinarily do.
ApatheticNoMore
8-26-12, 12:25pm
My first thought on the hurricane and the convention when I first heard of it was actually: well if climate change is supposed to make hurricanes more likely and more virrulent then maybe it will get that party to take climate change more seriously! (in truth both parties, the Democrats talk a good game, possibly lesser evil, but especially with the President it's mostly talk - we know Romeny is for it but does anyone know where Obama really stands on the keystone pipeline, I know he's delayed it until after the election but ...). So climate change, that's my first thought on hurricanes and politics but I guess noone elses first thought on the matter of hurricanes and politics. The amount of hurricanes was actually pretty low this year, lower than average, which no does not disprove man made climate change much less climate change as such given all the other data on everything else (like actual record temperature data).
This is a pretty viscious thread. Progressive get accused of bloodlust (both parties will continue the wars and thus real bloodshed indefinitely but progressives are somehow uniquely guilty of bloodlust in some unspecified way). Or lack of broadmindedness. What is meant here? Just an intellectual openness to listening to an argument, that's all well and good, certainly a virtue, but people don't and frankly will never have time to base all their decisions on such. Or is broadmindedness non-judgement of anyone? That's ridiculous. I assume progressives are accused of mass starvation of peasants or something. I often think that American capitalism (or corporatism if you would prefer - there is a lot of that) and Soviet communism will all end up ending up in the same place when the ending of the story is actually written (the U.S. just took longer to get there). Deliberate starvation of peasants, not yet, but a very definite dictatorial turn to this American system lately. Maybe all the civil liberties stuff was only useful as a contrast to communism (also why it was useful to maintain a middle class - because hey if American life looks good in comparison ...) and now with that threat gone ....
See if you want to accuse progressives (those that believe in Obama - really believe in him and not just choose him as the regretable lesser of two evils) of something that mirrors early 20th century communist movements, it's this: I was thinking of Ayn Rand the other day. What do you think of Ayn Rand? I don't :) Hahaha, but really I was thinking about how it's all some progressive sites (salon) can go on about lately, and I was thinking well Ayn Rand herself, was what she was due to, well besides the drug use later on and its' attendant fanaticism, paranoia etc., due to the results of Soviet communism, which is universally agreed to be horrible. So she was mostly just pure reactivity against that. Is her beliefs on how the captialist (although really now AND THEN largely corporatist) economic system works laughable and unlikely to lead to human happiness? But of course! And for some bizarre reason not usually what leftist take on, they go on weird crusades against intangibles like selfishness instead. But mostly she was reactivity and understandable as such given her background. But what about the left back then that she was also reacting so violently against? It was half of it doing it apologies for the Soviet union (not a leftist, and he was a true leftist, he never became a conservative, like Orwell, but some of them). That's where you can draw the parallel, our side right or wrong thinking, that things like NDAA and Obamas murder policy get the pass from certain elements of the left .... all apologies again (the better elements fight it: Hedges, Chomsky). So the Republicans are better? The Republicans in general are not a whit better. They won't campaign against Obama on these issues, the Bush administration started many of them (which Obama has only made worse), etc. In fact the belief that say greater income inequality is going to lead to a less tyrannical society is very dubious on the face of it. Maybe it needs to be more tyrannical, if peasants, proles, or precariats are starving on the streets, you need to keep them down somehow.
Why doesn't this surprise me.
You didn't actually look at the link, did you Iris.
Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard. I am truly a liberal in that I believe all voices should be heard, even those I disagree with. Everyone should have a chance to vote, every voice should have equal say.
Besides, why would I want to rain on their party. I'm not voting Republican no matter who wins the nomination.:~) I just don't like seeing anyone disenfranchised.
ApatheticNoMore
8-26-12, 1:24pm
Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard.
Well if that's why Bae is going it's quixotic. But I don't know if such windmill tilting is any worse than posting cynical little quips on the internet about the utter corruption and hopelessness of the political process :). Ron Paul isn't even allowed to speak at the convention actually, though a canned speech and tribute to him will occur. Ron Paul will be giving a speech of his own several miles away (much like "free speech zones" no criticism that matters comes anywhere close to the *REAL* power). Ron Paul probably could have given a good little pleasing Republican speech full of talk of liberty and so on with no mention of NDAA, some criticism of the welfare state and made to shut up about the warfare state, he was after a Republican, and cooperative enough I guess, but I guess even that was too much of a risk (maybe the risk is that Paul would outshine anyone else the Reps are running).
Noone ran to the left as a principled challenge of Obama and if they did I'm sure they would have been silenced too. Last time it seems both choices boiled down to war-mongering corporatists (Hillary who was obviously so, and Obama who some hoped would be better, only turns out he wasn't). What would the positions of a challenger to this be? Well I'm not sure you can run hard left in this country and win (either in popular opinion or in the money sweepstakes), so it's iffy to run on socialized (as opposed to corporatized) medicine or something, though maybe worth a try, but you run: a guarantee of no cuts to Medicare or Social Security (possibly moving down Medicare age), food stamps or AFDC possibly in exchange for ending of the Bush tax cuts, serious environmental policy, ending of the wars if not tommorow a serious plan and commitment to get the heck out, restoration of civil liberties. And that's what serious challenge looks like. And none has been allowed to exist on the left either. Heck, they didn't even get as far as Paul did (at least he was visible).
Can't disagree, ApatheticNoMore. Depressing, isn't it?
I don't really see the Paul delegates as 'tilting at windmills'. Paul has stayed in, this far, and in my book that's really something. In fact, oddly as it seems, I think he is actually one of the 'true' candidates in that he HAS stayed in, despite all the piles of cash Romney (republicans) has thrown at him. Oh I still believe he is a bit of a loony, but, and this is important, he has actually stood throughout for his principles. He hasn't bent, or etch-a-sketched to fit whatever the audience in front of him wanted to hear. I'm guessing this is one of the things bae finds endearing about him. I certainly do. He really strikes me as someone who would be really interesting to sit next to at a dinner, and that he would welcome some debate on his theories. To tell you the truth, I would much rather claim him as a relative than Mitt, who doesn't really stand for anything except what he thinks will get him elected.
I think it's just a shame how his supporters are dismissed so easily. I will watch the convention cause I really like politics (and sausage making!) and I would have really liked a speech from him. I really miss the days of conventions where the passions ran high and the obvious losers gave rousting speeches where they released their delegates to vote for another. Conventions are so canned these days, it's almost not worth it. I'm sure bae will have a good time, but it's just not the same.
And I believe that of democratic conventions. Although it kinda was fun with Hillary and all, it was pretty much a given. I am glad President Obama recognized her talent and gave her an important position in the administration. I was thinking Attorney General, but, well...only Hillary can tell us if this was the best fit.
You didn't actually look at the link, did you Iris.
Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard. I am truly a liberal in that I believe all voices should be heard, even those I disagree with. Everyone should have a chance to vote, every voice should have equal say.
Besides, why would I want to rain on their party. I'm not voting Republican no matter who wins the nomination.:~) I just don't like seeing anyone disenfranchised.
Please explain to me your view of how this convention is different from any other convention where there is a lead candidate who has it sewn up with the required minimum number of votes before the convention starts. I don't understand your talk about voices for the minority candidate being "heard."
That there is animosity between establishment Romney supporters (and he had to work to reel them in, you know) and upstart Paul people, well, no kidding. Do you remember the Hil & Barak wars? Some nasty stuff there.
My impression of Paul supporters vs Romney supporters here at my local caucus was favorable for both. The Paul people were uber organized and they showed up in big numbers. Having seen their compatriots in the nearby Republican dominated county ousted (probably unfairly) they were ready to take no prisoners here in the city. It was great that they had enough people on the floor to vote in their guy to be the official leader of the caucus. He was young and polished and handled the raucous meeting well. Frankly, I don't even know which Presidential candidate won the votes at our local caucus because I couldn't follow the logic of it, but it might have been Paul in the end.
. The amount of hurricanes was actually pretty low this year, lower than average, which no does not disprove man made climate change
It does call into question the predictive authority of the models. Plenty of time left for fireworks this year but recent years don't support the prediction...
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
History will bear them out.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mXOJsfJyd74/Sh8IGZl1_9I/AAAAAAAACOk/zzKrywr50lY/s400/Obamas+new+america.jpg
http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/soviet_posters/keep_kulaks_out_of_collective_farms_1930_b.jpg
I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.
Just curious, has Letterman ever stated where he stands politically? I'm guessing left.....As I remember back in 2008 he grilled McCain pretty bad for blowing off his show.....Apparenty he was supposed to be a guest on Letteman and went and did some other appearance in the same building in NYC and went and blew Letterman off and Letterman was less the pleased about it. RobRegardless of his political affiliation, my comment has to do with the date attributed. If you want to consider Sarah Palin a force of nature, you need to wait till 2008.
I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.
I am happy that moderation of content is pretty loose here these days. I think you might do better here if you'd participate in other forums on this website, and would stop doing hit and run posts in the politico that rachet up heat.
It's entirely your choice how you participate here since the "rules" are fewer and heavy handed moderation a thing of the past, and no one is going to insist that you go over to the Environmental board and comment about too many pencils required by teachers. Your posts here are a little hysterical. Perhaps you, yourself, are not. But that's hard to glean.
You defend "a bit of schadenfreude" by referencing matching actions by crazies on the fringe right. Look, I don't expect this to be a peaceful and no-conflict place (that would be dull!) but a pet peeve is railing against nameless nutjobs and then tying that to posters here. What was unique about that "bit of schadenfreude" is that it was the expressed sentiment of people in this online community. It wasn't something spoken by a leader in the Democratic party. Someone called them on it. So what? The response WAS hyperbolic, and if there are convenient illustrations of atrocities on the left, well, are you arguing with history? I'm pretty sure there are equal numbers on the right as well, and if you want to continue a tit-for-tat conversation, post those rightie examples here. But tit-for-tat conversations aren't very interesting.
I am happy that moderation of content is pretty loose here these days. I think you might do better here if you'd participate in other forums on this website, and would stop doing hit and run posts in the politico that rachet up heat.
It's entirely your choice how you participate here since the "rules" are fewer and heavy handed moderation a thing of the past, and no one is going to insist that you go over to the Environmental board and comment about too many pencils required by teachers. Your posts here are a little hysterical. Perhaps you, yourself, are not. But that's hard to glean.
You defend "a bit of schadenfreude" by referencing matching actions by crazies on the fringe right. Look, I don't expect this to be a peaceful and no-conflict place (that would be dull!) but a pet peeve is railing against nameless nutjobs and then tying that to posters here. What was unique about that "bit of schadenfreude" is that it was the expressed sentiment of people in this online community. It wasn't something spoken by a leader in the Democratic party. Someone called them on it. So what? The response WAS hyperbolic, and if there are convenient illustrations of atrocities on the left, well, are you arguing with history? I'm pretty sure there are equal numbers on the right as well, and if you want to continue a tit-for-tat conversation, post those rightie examples here. But tit-for-tat conversations aren't very interesting.
I think the whole left / right thing as if there are only ever two sides gets a bit old. If Stalin had called himself a socialist, or a capitalist, rightist or leftist or anything else I expect he would still have been a ruthless dictator.
I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.
LOL, the irony here is palpable.
The post you find so offensive is an historically accurate representation of my tongue-in-cheek statement " Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!", a comment directly attributable to several poster's desire for a hurricane to disrupt the GOP convention, seemingly out of a desire to blame and punish Republicans for the tragedy of hurricane Katrina.
Now, my question to you is, how much collateral damage do you want to impose on those of us who point out such things?
Now, my question to you is, how much collateral damage do you want to impose on those of us who point out such things?
History provides us the answer to that as well.
"Let one hundred flowers bloom..."
http://www.art21.org/files/images/jaar-026.jpg
I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this.
***MOD HAT ON***
Rosebud, the forum rules of etiquette in no way attempt to limit opinion, only personal attacks and directly offensive language related to them. Granting others the right to hold and occasionally voice opinions in opposition to yours is a necessary evil in this open (free?) setting. If you feel the "double standard" applies to the moderation of this forum, or the lack thereof, you are welcome to post examples publicly for all to discuss or to contact me directly or to contact NRM administrators. Until that time I will consider the roughly equal number of comments from each end of the spectrum accusing the mods of imposing said double standards to be evidence that none exist. And the somewhat tongue in cheek exchanges that are common here should, IMO, remain in the harmless and occasionally thought provoking category of banter.
History provides us the answer to that as well.
"Let one hundred flowers bloom..."
Lol. My Dad always taught me that if snakes are sleeping in caves its best to just stay out of those caves, but then again he was a Libertarian.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 10:59am
rosebud: if you want to fight fire with fire, you make a long post about the horrors of the Pinochet regime (guess you don't, so I will :)). While the death toll from Pinochet isn't in the Soviet/Chinese Communist range, the amount killed and tortured (mosly tortured, boy did they love their torture) was over 40k, so it's not small potatoes. Their economic policies were mostly learned from the Chicago school (Milton Freidman and so on). They also had CIA support. And all this because the people might democratically elect a socialist (this is why democracy had to be thrown out the window for a coup), a bloody torturing murderous dictatorship HAD TO be imposed on them to save them from the possibility of left wing dictatorship! Perfectly logical huh? What are you going to do with a bunch of socialists anyway, clearly just kill and torture them. So they killed, tortured, and implemented Republican economics, ah I see. Quite honestly, and I mean this: all those free market Chilean economists COOPERATED with death and torture, in order to implement some free market ideas - there's no excuse for that ever - they have blood on their hands (not theoretical "bloodlust" blood, but REAL blood). Then you post pictures of some dead people with a caption: "Republicans ideas and killing - they go together" (and see other than being a way overextended generalization saying this about Chilie is not untrue strictly speaking is it?). It is sure to garner many LOLs. Oh that's so hilarious, nothing funnier than dictator references. OMG ROFLOL.
Meanwhile back in the present moment, these are some of the lead market economies in our market world: modern (not Mao's) China which is STILL of course a dictatorship and is known to punish political prisoners, and the U.S. which grows more like 1984 (the surveilence etc.) by the day. Wow freedom in bloom all over indeed. I just knew neoliberalism would take us there (snark).
Yossarian
8-27-12, 11:25am
rosebud: if you want to fight fire with fire, you make a long post about...
Irrelvant info? Try to focus. As pointed out previously, lots of bad things are done by bad people for a variety of reasons. What happened here is people on this board wished for bad things to occur to other people to further their own political aims. The fact that other people have done bad things for whatever crazy religious or economic motivation doesn't imply anyone here who objects to that has those ambitions, nor does it mitigate the impropriety of the original statement. The debate is not a right/left dichotomy as you have envisioned it. It is between those that would have others suffer to further their political ideas and those who view those views as objectionable. So ironically your post is not a rebuttal but rather another exampe of the same point.
One silver lining of the cloudy weather: Joe Biden has cancelled his trip to "the belly of the beast" (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/27/bidens-thuggish-distraction).
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 11:37am
The debate is not between some right/left dichotomy as you have envisioned it
So then statements like this (that were used directly with the pictures): "Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!" aren't really meant to have any left/right meaning? I just invented a left/right dichotomy out of whole cloth if I saw progressives as meaning those on the left? (actually that term is used mostly to mean "Obama supporters" these days which is why I'd stay miles away from it, but that's another story, twasn't me who introduced the term here). Well I think that's self-evidently absurd, so I don't know what argument I can make against things that are on the face of them ridiculous (ie progressive really doesn't introduce a political dynamic etc.).
My first thought on the hurricane and the convention when I first heard of it was actually: well if climate change is supposed to make hurricanes more likely and more virrulent then maybe it will get that party to take climate change more seriously! (in truth both parties, the Democrats talk a good game, possibly lesser evil, but especially with the President it's mostly talk - we know Romeny is for it but does anyone know where Obama really stands on the keystone pipeline, I know he's delayed it until after the election but ...). So climate change, that's my first thought on hurricanes and politics but I guess noone elses first thought on the matter of hurricanes and politics. The amount of hurricanes was actually pretty low this year, lower than average, which no does not disprove man made climate change much less climate change as such given all the other data on everything else (like actual record temperature data).
The hurricane season is really, just getting started. And NOAA has changed the prediction level mid-season, to increase the amounts of hurricanes.
I too thought that the Repubs might change their tune when a hurricane disrupts their convention, that maybe they would wake up to the fact that there are new normals now, huge droughts, massive rain, warmer temps in the winter, more bugs moving in, and therefore more wildfires. But no, they keep going with the same old same old. Yet the science is staring them in the face, but they do not either care or want to believe.
I rarely go on the Policy forums but if you notice, it seems to have the most pages of conversations.
But it does look like Louisiana is going to be hit again, not really Florida. But my friends in Everglades had to get out at least for today and tomorrow. Then they will go back in, clean up and work.
The Repubs Convention will go on, but they will be sharing the air time with those listening in about the hurricane. Hopefully it will just be a Category 1, not too painful for anyone, and give some needed rain for those that need it. At least that is what I hope for.
Oh and Bae - where are those "indoor" gardens? Pretty neat picture!
Yossarian
8-27-12, 12:42pm
So then statements like this (that were used directly with the pictures): "Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!" aren't really meant to have any left/right meaning?
I took them as merely contextual to the people who were making the asinine comments, not a statement that all liberals or progressives hold those views. YMMV.
mtnlaurel
8-27-12, 12:53pm
As usual, I don't have enough time to really sink my teeth into any discussion and really parse out each and every entry to find supporting quotes.... as my habit is to check in & out of the forums like a hummingbird as I buzz through my day & follow the ones I am interested in at any given moment... but.....
I didn't read any of the posts here as people literally wishing the Republican Party Convention get blown off the map by the hurricane
But rather, making politically slanted comments by discussing their perception of the Irony of the Repub Convention being in the path of Hurricane given the Bush track record on Katrina which many have questioned and the far right (what I would call) kooks for saying God smites sinners with natural disasters (my paraphrasing). These said kiooks are often identified with the Rep. party as it often seems only the bravest of Repubs (i.e Chris Christie)* publicly call them out on a semi-regular basis.
*And he's only brave because he isn't as reliant on far right religious for election as republicans in other areas of the country
Republicans are currently engaged in some kind of PR ju-jit-su to brand Dems as Negative, Dirty campaigners because they need to get some heat off of themselves.
(And I am certain that there are tons of instances of terrible Democratic infractions similar to the Corker ads against Harold Ford or robo calls in SC that McCain has an illegitimate black baby)
(And both parties stink in my opinion because I want effective gov. that works and builds a stong, sustainable nation and I am happy to take it smaller if that's what it takes to do it.
If Repubs didn't let social conservatives run around like they own the party, I could more than occasionally buy into what they are peddling.)
It's like when you tell your husband Please stop leaving toilet seat up
DH "why are you being so negative?"
DW "I'm not being negative, I am merely pointing out a fact that the toilet seat is being left up"
DH "You are such a negative person"
DW "No, I just don't want to sit on a cold, hard exposed toilet in the middle of the night"
Re: sensorship of boards.
I like that we are given the freedom to scrap amongst ourselves.
As long as we aren't calling each other idgits or other mean names I can live with it.
The hurricane season is really, just getting started. And NOAA has changed the prediction level mid-season, to increase the amounts of hurricanes.
I too thought that the Repubs might change their tune when a hurricane disrupts their convention, that maybe they would wake up to the fact that there are new normals now, huge droughts, massive rain, warmer temps in the winter, more bugs moving in, and therefore more wildfires. But no, they keep going with the same old same old. Yet the science is staring them in the face, but they do not either care or want to believe.
I rarely go on the Policy forums but if you notice, it seems to have the most pages of conversations.
But it does look like Louisiana is going to be hit again, not really Florida. But my friends in Everglades had to get out at least for today and tomorrow. Then they will go back in, clean up and work.
The Repubs Convention will go on, but they will be sharing the air time with those listening in about the hurricane. Hopefully it will just be a Category 1, not too painful for anyone, and give some needed rain for those that need it. At least that is what I hope for.
There appear to be a lot of assumptions at work in your post. Very few will argue that the planet is either warming or going through a warm cycle right now so I'm assuming the idea that this shift is caused by human activity is the part you're saying Republicans don't want to believe? To tie starting your car to an increase in hurricane activity is a butterfly effect argument at best, but the truth is probably more politically....inconvenient.
One truth is that the earth regularly goes through heating and cooling cycles. Another is that out of the 4 1/2 billion years earth has been around humans have only been burning fossil fuels, coal, for 1000 years or so. And they have only been burning highly concentrated fossil fuels, oil, for 150 years. And only on a large scale for 50 or so. Has there been enough nasty greenhouse gas released to compromise the planet? No one knows for sure.
Another truth is that this country runs on oil. Our civilization would never have advanced to the point we're at without a highly concentrated, highly portable energy source like that. Almost everything we, Republicans AND Democrats, do is dependent on energy from fossil fuels or products that are created with a direct link to them. That is REALLY inconvenient! Since no one has yet discovered a replacement for that energy source we can either stop using it and set civilization back a couple hundred years or keep using it and (possibly) risk everything. Not an easy choice, aye?
Yet another truth (at least in the moral sense) is that a nation that consumes as much fossil fuel as the US should have a very clear national energy policy that addresses all the elements of energy use, INCLUDING the possibility that climate change is effected/caused by human activity. This country does not have such a plan. The guys in charge dropped that ball. If this is a lynch pin election issue for someone who has traditionally voted Democratic they may want to consider different candidates.
I didn't read any of the posts here as people literally wishing the Republican Party Convention get blown off the map by the hurricane.
Same here. This group is better than that.
There appear to be a lot of assumptions at work in your post. Very few will argue that the planet is either warming or going through a warm cycle right now so I'm assuming the idea that this shift is caused by human activity is the part you're saying Republicans don't want to believe? To tie starting your car to an increase in hurricane activity is a butterfly effect argument at best, but the truth is probably more politically....inconvenient.
Actually Gregg, I study this every single day. And yes, the Repubs are saying either there is no global warming or they do not believe the science. Even more vexing is that there are still folks that do not understand just regular science FACTS, like that the sun is bigger than the Earth, and that it is over 93 million miles away. I kid you not!
One truth is that the earth regularly goes through heating and cooling cycles. Another is that out of the 4 1/2 billion years earth has been around humans have only been burning fossil fuels, coal, for 1000 years or so. And they have only been burning highly concentrated fossil fuels, oil, for 150 years. And only on a large scale for 50 or so. Has there been enough nasty greenhouse gas released to compromise the planet? No one knows for sure.
As a Geologist, I think I have a good background for knowing and understanding about earth's cycles. And as a park ranger in a prehistorically rich area, I know quite a bit of archeology and anthropology. So I can say with conviction that you are wrong.
Humans have been changing their environment ever since they have come into the equation 1 million years ago. It is not just hydrocarbons, but also nitrates, sulfates, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, wood burning, coal burning, hunting using wildfires, cutting down trees, natural selection of species that would help the human and those that would not. We continually change our environment.
And yes, people do know for sure that greenhouse gases have compromised the planet. Most Climate scientists agree to that fact.
Another truth is that this country runs on oil. I agree.
...Since no one has yet discovered a replacement for that energy source we can either stop using it and set civilization back a couple hundred years or keep using it and (possibly) risk everything. Not an easy choice, aye? I do not believe that our civilization will go back, however, I do believe that we need to prepare ourselves for the future of less choice. I do not agree with messing up the environment (groundwater, species dying, more wildfires, more bugs coming into the area and bringing diseases, etc.) just to get to harder and harder to get oil products. I think it is better to cut back than mess up the earth.
Yet another truth (at least in the moral sense) is that a nation that consumes as much fossil fuel as the US should have a very clear national energy policy that addresses all the elements of energy use, INCLUDING the possibility that climate change is effected/caused by human activity. This country does not have such a plan....
Nor will our government no matter who is President, will do so, as it would be political suicide. Look at President Jimmy Carter.
While Americans might buckle down and spend less, they still want to drive all over, wherever they want. When they travel, they think nothing of running the engine to get the ac rather than opening the windows and breathing in the fresh air. They throw away food rather than buying less and eating leftovers. They would rather drive than walk. I work at one of the most beautiful national parks in the world, yet people want to see it from their car window. With the windows up and the ac running. :0!
Really Laura, we're not so far apart. I do have my reservations about how much of the observed climate phenomena can be blamed on human activity, most notably the burning of fossil fuels. There are wide swings in CO2, methane and other gas levels that predate any human activity beyond a campfire. My family is deeply rooted in agriculture and survived the dust bowl of the 30's, drought in the 50's, the 70's and a severe drought in the late 80's. There's an old study that claims an average thunderstorm releases as much energy as 50 of the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan. It is further estimated that there are some 18 MILLION thunderstorms around the world in any given year. And that is only one small part of the climate. Ocean currents & tides, volcanoes, hurricanes, blizzards, the sun? Have we really unleashed something that is powerful enough to change forces like that? I don't know. I do know several examples of complex systems that can be thrown off with relatively minor adjustments to the mix so can't rule it out. And of course you are right about humans changing their environment. From chopping down the cedars of Lebanon on we have done exactly that, just never with the whole planet.
But the argument also doesn't really matter all that much to me because burning fossil fuels at a high rate is nonsensical in so many other ways. Basing a global economy on a finite resource is, at best, building a house of cards. Everyone already agrees the by-products of combustion include almost countless poisons. If anyone doubts that have them start the car and close the garage door. They can always put it up if they change their mind. Why would be build a society destined to fail when our supply did and why would we knowingly poison ourselves? To me those are more compelling arguments. Interestingly, we end up in exactly the same place regardless of the path taken.
It totally chaps me to hear how Republicans don't give a **** about the planet. Its not true. Remember, we live here, too. (I'm not Republican but I play one on TV.) It also ticks me off to hear about Jimmy Carter. He is a good and compassionate man who understood there was a problem. That's the first step, but politically he was a fool. There are very powerful and influential industries that can become allies or adversaries. Why would you not want them on your side? When you get right down to it a policy that lays out the next 100 years of our energy future needs to include the big players of today. It is craziness to go forward without their input because they are already mapping strategies 20, 30 and 50 years out. There are so many Democrats that just can't seem to get over the hump where someone is going to make a profit. It's a cut off your nose to spite your face idea. I know people who think they would rather go with no power and no transportation if it meant the end of big oil. These are the same people who expect bananas for breakfast in Minnesota and a new DWTS on TV every night. Forget the sun being bigger than the earth, we can at least teach those people.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 7:04pm
Well Romney wants to expand offshore drilling. In what world does that make sense? Republicans WORK HARD to earn their anti-environmental stripes. It's like you say doubling down on a losing strategy to keep pursuing this harder and harder to get oil. Unfortunately that's Romney for you. Plus more drilling on federal lands. Wait is that land even theirs to drill? This land is your land ... this land is my land. Wait where was I? But seriously that federal land is ALL OF OURS at least in theory, it's not the oil companies no matter how many dollars they flood into the Romney campaign (and they do, they definitely do, although it's not even very easy to trace anymore).
Well Romney wants to expand offshore drilling. In what world does that make sense? Republicans WORK HARD to earn their anti-environmental stripes. It's like you say doubling down on a losing strategy to keep pursuing this harder and harder to get oil. Unfortunately that's Romney for you. Plus more drilling on federal lands. Wait is that land even theirs to drill? This land is your land ... this land is my land. Wait where was I? But seriously that federal land is ALL OF OURS at least in theory, it's not the oil companies no matter how many dollars they flood into the Romney campaign (and they do, they definitely do, although it's not even very easy to trace anymore).
Ah...but it becomes Romney's land if he is elected President. And that's the point. It becomes his land, his tax code, his economics. Don't underestimate the bully pulpit, even thought Obama hasn't' utilized it to his advantage, it's there, and it has power. A Romney Presidency is a rape and pillage of the natural resources of this country. Not even a thoughtful question as to whether we have affected climate change, but no question we have nothing to do with it and Onward Fracking Soldiers! It's their platform and their belief.
ljevtich is right. It really isn't a matter of whether you 'believe' it, just like evolution isn't up for 'belief'. It's accepted scientific truth, in as much as we know today, which is all we can go on really. Just like gravity, and black holes, and the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, we can't see these things, but must accept the truth of the scientific minds of today.
I really don't understand why republicans don't accept these truths, evolution and climate change, but i know they are wrong. Maybe it's religious dogma that prevents them from accepting the truth, I don't know. How long did it take Galileo to receive acknowledgement from the church! But for whatever reason, we must not let these people convince the average person that ignorance is the other side of a reasonable and educated coin on these topics.
Really, a vengeful god blowing hot air onto mankind for their sins isn't the other side of climate change!
You know you're old when you can remember back to when Republicans were conservationists.
iris lily
8-27-12, 11:34pm
You know you're old when you can remember back to when Republicans were conservationists.
That's probably some of what ails me. Conservatives conserve, you know? At least, that's my logic.
In my state supporting historic restoration is a Department of Natural Resources activity so hough hugging is an activity that is kinda aligned with the greenies.
I think it was a very sicentific republican senate candidate who recently said a woman can not get pregnant from a real rape. He thinks the woman's reproductive tract shuts down. Very sicentific!
I think he is running for office in you state Iris. Are you voting for him?
iris lily
8-28-12, 12:25am
I think it was a very sicentific republican senate candidate who recently said a woman can not get pregnant from a real rape. He thinks the woman's reproductive tract shuts down. Very sicentific!
I think he is running for office in you state Iris. Are you voting for him?
That jackass Aiken needs to get out of the race, and I've been emailing and sending letters since a week ago Sunday toward that end. If he is still on the ballot in November, which I doubt, me 'n my buddies may participate in the coordinated write in effort.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2019005288_localconvention28m.html
Rock on, bae!
ApatheticNoMore
8-28-12, 2:30am
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2019005288_localconvention28m.html
Rock on, bae!
:+1: resist the borg
That jackass Aiken needs to get out of the race, and I've been emailing and sending letters since a week ago Sunday toward that end. If he is still on the ballot in November, which I doubt, me 'n my buddies may participate in the coordinated write in effort.
The problem is that leaves us with Claire, another Dem who doesn't pay her taxes, unless caught of coarse. And who is just another rubber stamp for Obama.
prej·u·dice/ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ [prej-uh-dis]
Noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, political or national group.
Etc.
Armor is useless if it has holes in it. If it does there are better ways to fight the battle than a direct assault. When your perception of a small group (even if its right) suddenly transfers to whole populations you lose something. Actually you gain something. Hypocrisy.
Of course I could be wrong. If so will someone please point out the long list of environmental accomplishments from the current administration? Someone with a full tank might point out the temporary "ban" on off shore drilling in the Gulf. Fine, no hypocrisy there. What else? Going to guess one major party isn't really that much better than the other environmentally. Maybe its our culture that sucks. Maybe we all contribute to the problem. Show me a democrat that preaches (and practices) personal responsibility and I just might vote for her/him. Show me Al Gore and prove my point.
The problem is that leaves us with Claire, another Dem who doesn't pay her taxes, unless caught of coarse. And who is just another rubber stamp for Obama.
oh believe me Claire is a problem, that's why Aiken needs to exit now so that we can get a viable candidate on the ballot, not Claire's own hand-picked opponent Todd Aiken.
Going to guess one major party isn't really that much better than the other environmentally.Romney said, what is the point of national parks? Maybe we should sell them off to get more money. Or maybe we should drill or mine or frack in national parks and federally owned lands.
So basically ANYONE is better than him.
How did someone so clearly ignorant of basic biology as Todd Akin get appointed to the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology anyway? Perhaps we should institute competency tests, IQ tests, or civil service tests. I'd like to think people running the government were the best and the brightest; I guess I'm naive that way.
Obviously it is not the best and the brightest. Dumb and Dumber is more like it.
OK, while this has been fun, I now will be going back to the land of slow internet speeds, but a place of infinite beauty, Grand Canyon National Park, Desert View.
The internet has been nice, though, down here in Prescott, AZ. And cool air, almost a full moon, and a walk around town should clear my head before we head back to work tomorrow. Enjoy your day, fellow SLFers
Romney said, what is the point of national parks? Maybe we should sell them off to get more money. Or maybe we should drill or mine or frack in national parks and federally owned lands.
So basically ANYONE is better than him.
I have been to most of the national parks in the west, some a few dozen times, and feel a deep appreciation for all of them. That said, the parks are not the key to what will save the planet. It might be sad to see the North Rim lined with condos and golf courses and a sky tram to the river, but it probably wouldn't have much effect outside that mesoclimate. If we're talking about environmental impacts on a planetary scale we need to look at the whole enchilada. Jimmy Carter put on a sweater when he should have pushed for 100 mpg by 2000. Don't get me wrong, its going to be really, really hard to do, I just don't think there's a choice. Saving the Grand Canyon is great, its the kind of place we should save, but if we keep pushing forward out of control with everything else then all we're doing is saving it for the cockroaches.
On environmental issues, really, the candidates couldn't be farther apart.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/04/23/a-side-by-side-comparison-of-romney-and-obama-on-energy-and-environment/
The problem is that, once elected, no president operates in a vacuum (especially not Jimmy Carter, who you seem to love to vilify). Even if Romney were to do a complete about-face and support programs like green jobs and higher fuel-efficiency standards, it would never get through both houses. Carter at least would've been willing to push for 100mpg if he thought he had a snowball's chance in hell. Romney, conversely, will fight tooth and nail against ANY further efficiency standards.
But to willingly vote for a man who plans to turn the clock back on the few useful measures that WERE pushed by the current administration? A man who will happily enable the export of American jobs to bolster the bottom line of corporate interests and their obscene pay structures, but who will then turn around and oppose emissions limits and Kyoto because they will "cost American jobs"?
No, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Even if I feel Obama hasn't done nearly enough, at least I know he's not planning to gut any hope of progress by his (very clear, stated) policies, as is Romney.
I agree with you, Gregg. It's going to be very, very hard to do. So why start with an administration that has promised to stand in the way of any positive change?
Sad state of affairs we're in. But there you have it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.