Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRepublicans, having driven the economy into a ditch during the last eight years, are now opposing the one piece of legislation--an economic stimulus--that might turn things around. House Republican leaders are telling their rank-and-file to vote against the $825 billion plan, even before they meet with Barack Obama, yet again, this afternoon.
Bob Herbert of the New York Times raises a good point in his column today:
The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. GOP policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.
Herbert didn't mention that these days, crony capitalist policies have even bankrupted the wealthy. Yet Obama rode into Washington promising to listen to the other side and usher in a new era of "post-partisanship" in Washington, whatever that means. His allies declared that they wanted 80 yes votes on the stimulus bill, loading up the legislation with tax cuts to attract wavering Republicans.
Turns out such a projection, not surprisingly, wasn't entirely realistic. The Republican Party that exists today on Capitol Hill is much smaller, more conservative and more Southern than it was two, four or eight years ago. It's going to be very difficult for Obama to rationally negotiate with many of them. Obama himself seems to have reluctantly realized that, telling a gathering of House Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
When the number two Republican in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor, complained of a provision in the stimulus bill that would help low-income workers (god forbid), Obama responded: "You're correct, there's a philosophical difference, but I won, so we're going to prevail on that."
Quite right. Elections have consequences and the public put Democrats squarely in control of Washington for the first time since 1992. It's smart politics for Obama to listen to Republicans but bad policy to let them dictate his legislative agenda. Eighty votes is all well and good as a theoretical utopia, but a bare majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate (it used to be 51, before the GOP filibustered every bill they didn't like) is all he needs.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Ari Berman says partisianship isn't a dirty word.
That, of course, is if Democrats practice it.
It is wrong when Republicans practice it, apparently.
1. When a Republican is President, it is wrong, apparently, for Republicans to carry out their agenda and be partisan. It not only is wrong, it is unconstitutional and illegal and against international law and is impeachable.
2. When a Republican is President, it is NOT wrong and it is GOOD for Democrats to oppose the administration, appparently, in order to fight for the people and all the oppressed worldwide and fight against all the grinding wrong and illegalities.
3. When a Democrat is President it is NOT wrong to be partisian, in fact it is GOOD and RIGHT to be partisian in the fight for the workers and the people that the Democrat was elected by virtually the entire country, in synch and unison, except for some wicked neocons here and there, to conduct. Partisianship is necessary to do the will of the people against the wealthy, the neocons, the neo clowns and the assclowns, and all others that would deny the will of the people in their quest and right and fight for social justice and peace and socialist utopia.
4. When a Democrat is President it is WRONG for a Republican to be partisian, because it is wrong to not be bi-partisian and accept the will of the people and join the fight for social justice and peace instead of pandering to the wealthy that have lined that Republican's pockets with their ill-gotten gain.
I just thought I would take the opportunity to expand upon what the meanings are behind the sentiments expressed by Mr. Berman and other The Nation staffers.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 12:00pm
if the democrats remove those family planning funds, i'm gonna be pissed.
you see, when "partisan" = spreading lies (like the DC pundit class so successfully does all the time), then the american public becomes the victim.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 12:18pm
Remember when the Republicans threatened to use the "nuclear option" and remove the filibuster from the Senate rules if the Democrats blocked any of their legistlative agenda? I haven't forgotten and I hope the Democrats haven't either. Compared to the Republicans, the Democrats have not even started to be partisan. Maybe we should call you a traitor for not supporting the President Obama, the way the right did to us when we disagreed with President Bush.
Posted by Guiles at 01/27/2009 @ 12:21pm
this country has a very serious problem a little thing called 'thinking'. everyone.
let me give you an example. when stephanopolous asked pelosi, on television sunday, about the family planning portion of the stimulus bill, she said something like 'it reduces costs'. duh. everyone with a brain knows that family planning is absolutely essential for women and families.
but, stephanapolous persisted, "any apologies?" pelosi was asked to apologize for.......what? family planning?
and the drudge spins it like 'hundreds of millions will be given towards contraceptives,' and boehner and others follow with the lies.....
f*ck the GOP and the DC pundit class!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 12:22pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 12:00pm
Everybody OUT of power wants "bipartisanship"...everybody IN power wants to "get the agenda pushed through that the American people voted for".
When it was YOUR guys, you had no problem running roughshod over the Dems...even laughed about it and how "Dubya is showing those Dems who's the Boss!".
Now that you're on the outs, your side complains about being ignored.
As far as your mentor Limbaugh goes, Obama may have made a smart move. Get the Repubs either linked to him and the Hard Right base (who still try stuff like "There's no such thing as global warming"...right after McCain ran on it being true)....and further isolate them from the mainstream of the electorate for 2010 and 2012....
or they try to distance themselves from Maha-rushi (or "Oxy-rush" as I like) and piss off the base.
Either way a win-win for Obama.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 12:23pm
"Either way a win-win for Obama"
pretty much!
i honestly think that, if the republicans want to become relevant again, they really must embrace a few things:
* tax cuts don't work
* we are causing climate change
* golfing is really bad for the environment
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 12:31pm
darladoon,
Since your statements 1 and 3 are known to be wrong, and the jury is out on your statement 2, there are no reasons for Republicans to embrace these.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 12:36pm
* golfing is really bad for the environment
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 12:31pm
Now, let's not get crazy here.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 12:43pm
"Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
No, it would not be good.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 12:55pm
"Since your statements 1 and 3 are known to be wrong, and the jury is out on your statement 2"
if 1 is wrong, then please explain how bush's tax policy was effective?
if 3 is wrong, then tell me how golfing is good for the environment?
2 is most definitely correct. i am not even going to debate with a neophyte about this.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:01pm
"The Federal Govt has NO BUSINESS getting involved in "family planning"."
if the federal goverment does *not* get involved in family planning, then the costs to our health care system will rise dramatically.
so, the essence of your complaint is that you actually *prefer* to see health costs go up.
liberty, you are living in a parallel reality.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:05pm
darladoon,
There is plenty of evidence in the public domain that the economy grew because of the tax cuts... The economy was going into recession at the end of Clintons term... September 11 was a big blow to the economy.. but then it recovered, the job losses that were talked about the first couple of years of the Bush presidency turned into job gains.
Many golf course supertendents and greenskeepers are schooled in and skilled in agronomy, turf maintenance, etc.
A lot of modern golf courses are built with the environment in mind and become a plus for the surroundings and help create wildlife habitat.
More and more scientists (that are qualified credentialed scientists) are questioning the concepts of global warming, every effort is made not only by people such as you but global warming proponent scientists, to silence them.
Whatever detail I get into will be poo-pooed by you anyway, so there is no point spending time providing links that exist in the public domain. By not providing links, you will say see, Sjerk, you can't back up what you say.
There is no point allowing you to run me in circles on topics that are debated over and over again on this website.
You just like to state your opinion, no problem there, but say "In my opinion" first
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 1:10pm
"I warned last fall that the Democrats would spin out of control in their hunger to impose socialism in America"
liberty, the country needs socialism. your comrades need it more than anybody at this point. this is nothing to say of those of us at or near the bottom (many of whom are jobless, homeless, and hungry). you, a christian, want these people to rot. and you call yourself a christian, you shameless coward! you are the epitome of a spineless hypocrite!
Jesus was a Socialist!!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:10pm
lvliberty1,
You said " Obama and this Congress may be just the ticket to abandoning everything that was ever good about this nation and instead becoming a cesspool of sin and degradation. "
However, since the Obama administration will:
1. possibly let the terrorist darlings out of Guantanamo,
2. maybe leave Iraq before we should,
3. roll back the Patriot Act and the ability to "connect the dots",
4. have dialogue with Iran while they are developing their nuke,
5. put pressure on Israel to capitulate to Hamas murderers
6. God knows what else
as a result I think at least some of us will be killed in a terrorist attack, including me, before the country even gets a chance to become a cesspool of sin and degradation.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 1:17pm
"There is plenty of evidence in the public domain that the economy grew because of the tax cuts"
but your argument assumes that economic growth is a positive marker. it isn't. there isn't always room for a system to grow. in fact, remember when bush urged americans to go out and shop after 9.11? that was a terrible idea, as more and more americans survived on credit. and with this stimulus package, i'm sure even democrats will even urge americans to spend their money on stuff they don't need.
i'm sorry, but we are becoming a true socialist country (thank goddess), and it's about time.
"A lot of modern golf courses are built with the environment in mind and become a plus for the surroundings and help create wildlife habitat."
oh, oh my! this has to be the most hilarious quote i have read in many, many years. "with the environment in mind," as if there would be ANY OTHER way of thinking about......the environment! it's as if the environment were somehow separate for the golf course in the mind of its planners. hilarious!
and i'm not going to debate you on climate change dude. i do it all day as a gardener/horticulturist. the evidence is all around me. i read about the environment every night, in bed. there is nothing you can say that will somehow change my mind about it. it's a fact. it's real. and it's going to get a lot worse. just keep on living in denial, bro. keep driving your car, your plane, whatever. and thanks for helping to destroy my planet.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:21pm
"A little science lesson Darla."
what......this?
"3. I guess Darla would prefer either pavement, swamps, or desert land instead of golf courses which lower temperatures in an area, provide increased carbon dioxide conversion into oxygen, and provide an environment for a large range of living species that otherwise wouldn't exist."
bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahah! where does one even begin refuting such utter BULLSHIT!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:24pm
"either pavement, swamps, or desert"
hmmmmmm..........well, pavement sounds dumb.
would i rather a swamp or a desert?! i'll take whatever was there before the pavement.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:29pm
" "(golf courses) provide an environment for a large range of living species that otherwise wouldn't exist."
yeah, arrogant, sexist, white republicans!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:31pm
"Obama and this Congress may be just the ticket to abandoning everything that was ever good about this nation and instead becoming a cesspool of sin and degradation."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Actually LVL, the left like living in dark, dank cesspools (hehe). Anyway, the so-called stimulus money will do nothing more than fill state coffers. We know the people won't benefit.
Besides, the very idea of using part of this money for contraception is a joke and Pelosi got caught. She couldn't explain how the money would be used. But, I have a pretty good idea. Not-for-profits like NOW, Planned Parenthood and the Red Cross (to name a few) are top heavy administratively. More then likely Pelosi was privately lobbied or she may have promised the money before the new administration transitioned in the WH.
Only a portion of their funds come from the government (which is why they're tax-exempt) and the rest are to come from donations. The donations are down and now they have their hands stuck out looking for a piece of government pie. Which is a big NO, NO!!
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 1:35pm
"Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
No, it would not be good.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 12:55pm
Interesting isn't it how when LVLIB (and SJCHER)'s side loses power...suddenly they WANT America to fail.
Aren't these the same guys who used to say that it was the LEFT who wanted that to "get their power back"?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 1:40pm
"Besides, the very idea of using part of this money for contraception is a joke and Pelosi got caught."
yeah, what a joke. contraception is oh so funny. and man, that pelsoi. why does she insist on being so mature about.....you know.....women's health? it's just oh so funny, making silly claims like (snark, snark) planned parenthood seeking to "milk" the american taxpayer with silly, no-good programs like oh-so-silly 'family planning'. that's only for black and latino women....
meanwhile, the oh-so-serious jim boehner didn't "get caught" saying, "hundreds of millions of dollars will go to contraception." what a funny guy!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:42pm
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 1:40pm
That post smacked of a temper tantrum.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 1:43pm
libertys' post, not yours, lest our denser people try to turn it around. I should have said "his post". My bad.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 1:46pm
"more than 96% of Carbon Dioxide is naturally occuring and would be present in a larger scale without the present of human being."
ha, ha.....
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:42pm
Darla, get over yourself. Family planning organizations ARE NOT federal institutes like the NIH, HHS or the CDC.
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 1:43pm
They've been building since Obama was sworn in. On the "Preemptive Strike" thread, LVLIB wants to "ban unions"....Constitutional or not, because he didn't have fun in the Teamsters.
Now (as I kind of expected...just not so fast) he's in his "I hope the country goes under, because it's turning away from what I believe" mode....which Limbaugh and his flunkies (ex: SJCHER) are also leaping on...as well as the other right-wing talkers (Beck, etc.).
Seems everything they accused the Left of...they themselves were truly guilty of.
THEY are the ones who "want America to fail, so that they can get their power back"...and are quite blatently declaring that.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 1:52pm
" He believed that individuals were accountable to provide for the needy and not govt's."
but that only assumes (you dolt) that people will help the needy, like jesus did. clearly (!), the vast majority of people refuse to help the needy, unlike jesus.
therefore, the government has a responsibility to help the needy.
the government *is* made up of people anyway, so, in effect, individuals ARE helping the needy.
i've worked in soup kitchens and community hospitals, liberty. and without help from the feds, we wouldn't have much. we would have nothing, in fact. because individuals don't care/contribute.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:53pm
" Family planning organizations ARE NOT federal institutes like the NIH, HHS or the CDC."
so what?
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:54pm
"it is no business of govt to interfere in the choices people make to have or not have children. That makes you and those like you no better than the totalitarian Chinese with their limits on children."
if by "interfere," you mean, "engage with," then you are wrong. state governments are interested in reducing costs to their health care systems via education and counseling. this may include contraceptives (duh), but it does not include funds for abortion.
if you want to debate what the constitution says, then be my guest. i'm all ears. but if what pelosi is offering is LEGAL, then what's the problem? i think mature, educated, intelligent adults can all agree that family planning is essential to reducing costs, reducing population, etc.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:59pm
so what?
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:54pm
SO WHAT?! That still does not mean they are entitled.
Tell you what, ff you really want to help family planning organizations, perhaps you could sell part of your MJ stash and send the street proceeds to them.
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
"Wow, who can debate against a scientific rebuttal like that one? "
liberty, you are ignorant on the subject, ok? it's too amusing to read your statements and take you seriously on the subject climate change. you "know" a lot about god and jesus, and you seem to know the constitution pretty well, but on this subject, you should really just not say anything at all......
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:01pm
"Tell you what, ff you really want to help family planning organizations, perhaps you could sell part of your MJ stash and send the street proceeds to them."
that's really not a nice thing to say.
pelosi and obama know what the law is, the only reason they may pull these funds is outrage from.....you guessed it.....republicans. who simply are too childish, too immature, to understand that when you increase funds for family planning, you reduce costs to the states. duh. when you increase contraception, you keep the population down. that is not chinese. that is common f*cking sense.
why am i even having this conversation with men?! what the hell do you know about ANYTHING regarding pregnancy?!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 1:48pm
Thanks...saved me some time.
Posted by usc1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:09pm
To paraphrase Jesus:
"I was poor and you said the government couldn't help me. I was sick and you said the government couldn't provide health care. I was tortured and you said it was neccesary. My village was bombed and my family killed and you said it was self defense."
Posted by Guiles at 01/27/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 1:52pm
There is absolutely no excuse for desiring the country to fail, and is unforgivable due to the price it took to create it and keep it.
However, I understand their bitterness after having tasted power and then knowing they themselves pissed it away.
But there is good news and bad news for them.
The bad news is it couldn't be any worse for them.
The good news is that it couldn't be any worse for them. (nowhere to go but up)
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:59pm
Darla, you know full well what LVL is talking about. If states are interested in reducing their costs, then that's up to them to decide, not the Feds.
On the other hand, what Pelosi did borderd on being unconstitutional. You cannot use public tax dollars to fully fund a private entity.
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 2:10pm
hmmmmmm..........well, pavement sounds dumb.
would i rather a swamp or a desert?! i'll take whatever was there before the pavement.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:29pm
Then can we safely assume that you're living "as one with nature"...and not in a shelter, apartment, home or other God-farsaken man-made structure of some sort...sure would hate to screw up the natural habitat...donchaknow?
Posted by usc1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:13pm
Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch.org -- 28-29 April, 2007
'...Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. ... Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380...The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels....
...In fact, when it comes to corporate sponsorship of crackpot theories about why the world is getting warmer, the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the Greenhouser fearmongers and the nuclear industry, now largely owned by oil companies, whose prospects 20 years ago looked dark...'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Bob Dylan
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/27/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:04pm
Darla, Obama may know constitutional law, but Pelosi damned sure doesn't.
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 2:15pm
I love it when Darla gets on board here...she is BATS!!! But so entertaining...
Posted by usc1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:15pm
"A lot of modern golf courses are built with the environment in mind and become a plus for the surroundings and help create wildlife habitat."
What a steaming pile that statement is.
Around here they use recorded explosive bangs to keep the Canada geese off the golf courses. The prairie dogs, moles and gophers are poisoned.
The immense quantity of water required to keep them green in this semi-arid environment should concern everyone, including the local farmers.
Playing a round or two every now & then gives the 'bubs their dose of "egalitarian" kool aid. Apparently they're immune to the dirty looks their second hand cars receive in the clubhouse parking lots.
BTW, for repubs- the smiling brush off on the national stage. No room for obstructionists in a time of crisis.
Posted by Sorelish at 01/27/2009 @ 2:25pm
"On the other hand, what Pelosi did borderd on being unconstitutional. You cannot use public tax dollars to fully fund a private entity."
she never stated a "private entity." you did.
ever heard of public health, dude?
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:27pm
" The prairie dogs, moles and gophers are poisoned."
Posted by Sorelish at 01/27/2009 @ 2:25pm
My research has shown that poison, explosives, drowning and high powered rifles are ineffective against gophers.
Source: Caddyshack
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 2:32pm
"Why aren't we ordering the Volcano's and meteors to stop? After all, they have been the biggest culprits in "global warming" in the earth's history"
you see what i mean? liberty, seriously, dude. stop. now.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:34pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:34pm
Collapse the hole nearest to the largest mound, back away twenty feet, wait quietly for approx. 5 minutes, and shoot them with a .410
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 2:39pm
really, this whole "debate" about birth control is really yet another splendid example of how patriarchy is still in full effect. the "debate" has been hijacked by males, and the facts have been left out. why? because men have absolutely no idea what it's like to:
a) have a vagina
b) have a uterus
c) get pregant
d) give birth
on top of that, we are already at a disadvantage because of the overwhelming ignorance of those in power.
and here is timid little pelosi offering to help women, and poof, it's gone. lost in a blur of misinformation and sexism.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:48pm
ever heard of public health, dude?
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:27pm
Yes, I have - DUDE!!
Darla, public health is focused on intervention and prevention of a disease (ie, small pox, measles, chicken pox and polio) through surveillance of cases and the promotion of healthy behaviors. To my medical knowledge, family planning does not fall under that category.
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:01pm
Bull, LL. Soon as the GOP retook Congress and some "real conservative born-again Christian" won the White House....your doomsaying would magically disappear.
It's based purely on partisan politics and the fact that YOURS is on the outs and doesn't look like it's going to be back for a long time.
Ergo in YOUR mind, better for the country to "collapse"...than you be proven wrong.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 2:48pm
No Darla, the men may not have what you mentioned, but I do. I had three boys. How many children do you have?
Posted by ACook at 01/27/2009 @ 3:06pm
BTW, again (and again and again) on global warming?
War's over...the Deniers lost.
Once the only two choices in the major political candidates were:
(A) A Democrat who believed global warming was real, man-made, and needed addressing.
and (B) A REPUBLICAN who believed global warming was real, man-made, and needed addressing.
That's the end of the debate. Not even Arctic Prom Queen Granny will win the nomination on a "There ain't no such thang" platform in 2012.
Ergo politically the Deniers are "dead".
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Perhaps what those of us with inquiring minds forget is that this is a political blog which attracts closed mind ideologues like Darla and others too lazy to think for themselves or those lacking the basic intellectual curiosity to do so. That is why your allusion to the impossibility of human control of climate change goes right over the heads of such people.
The scientific evidence for continual natural climate change is overwhelming and the anthropogenic contribution, in a highly complex little understood earth climate system, is at best circumstantial and still a matter of conjecture. Politicians and now energy companies like us to believe it is settled science because it provides a great source of revenue for both. The added benefit for politicians is that it is a source from which they can easily milk support for their tax grabs from the basically ignorant and frightened masses. But isn't that the sort of people politicians always prey on?
One benefit accruing from the present economic downturn is that most of the ineffectual "save the planet" schemes are unlikely to see the light of day.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
darladoon,
You say " .. i read about the environment every night, in bed....."
A lot of people read before they fall asleep.. You are just telling us that your choice of reading material is the Gospel according to Algore.
Also you say " .......... there is nothing you can say that will somehow change my mind about it. ........."
NO KIDDING. That sentence everybody here knows already, it is blatantly obvious beyond mind-bending belief. You are stubborn, that's for sure.
You must be one of Algore's disciples.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
You must be one of Algore's disciples.-----Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
Hey SJ...who'd you vote for for President a few months back?
THIS "Algore disciple"?
The Boston Globe
By John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007
"THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.
The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming."
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
So here's a question for the familly values conservative types on here, refering to government funded contraception as immoral, socialist, etc.
If you believe government should have no role in "social engineering" or "family planning", how do you explain your desire for a Constitutional amendment or state laws mandating that marriage is only between one man and one woman? And all those tax breajks for marriage? Isn't that social engineering? Isn't the government giving legal rights to some types of families (heterosexual) but not others (homosexual) a type of family planning? And if so, does that mean you are an immoral socialist?
Nothing reeks like hypocrisy.
Posted by dhyde7723 at 01/27/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by dhyde7723 at 01/27/2009 @ 3:39pm |
Don't forget abortion. Most (again, defending my good pal LVLIB who's a "win hearts and minds but don't make it illegal"....so not him) want to make abortion illegal.
Yet somehow that's NOT "the government being socialist or interfering" when it comes to family matters.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:51pm
LL wrote: "The Federal Govt has NO BUSINESS getting involved in "family planning"."
If only you really believed that. You're all for the government outlawing abortions.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 3:51pm
Mask,
You are fascinating.
I would need a Cray Supercomputer to keep track of the number of times you have reminded me of who I voted for and how John McCain said global warming was real and man made.
Since you have all my posting (and all of everybody's postings, I am sure) you can go back and see I have addressed this issue before.
I have told you, I am quite sure, that McCain was not my first choice among the GOP candidates.
I believe I probably at one point at least said McCain and Gov. Palin should switch places on the ticket.
And I answered your question the first time you asked it, about who I voted for. Remember the post where I told you why I voted for the less-lib lib rather than the more-lib lib?
What is the purpose of continuing to ask these questions, other than to make a pain in the ass out of yourself?
OR----
Is one or are a number of keys on your computer keyboard stuck, and sending out the same message over and over?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 4:01pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 4:14pm
"...a definition that has stood among the civilizations of the world for over 5000 years".
Huh? Marriage has not been defined as the union of one man and one woman universally throughout mankind's history. You'd have to be completely naive to believe that.
Posted by soperja at 01/27/2009 @ 4:45pm
marriage used to be about keeping money in families and producing more laborers, romantic love was little or no part of the equation.
that's now how our society views marriage anymore, and hasn't for quite some time.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 4:52pm
"not" not "now"...oops
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 4:59pm
lvliberty1 and sjchermak makes me wish the Rapture myth was true, just to be rid of their type. Can't see much progress in this thread. Haven't yet found a conservative ideologue who valued real people as much as their value their treasured principles.
Posted by keenanjay at 01/27/2009 @ 5:21pm
Oops, "they value"
Posted by keenanjay at 01/27/2009 @ 5:23pm
"haven't yet found a conservative ideologue who valued real people as much as they value their treasured principles"
...
perfectly explains their stance against abortion. a fetus is more important than a woman.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 5:28pm
Exactly. Feeding the poor, healing the sick, and housing the homeless smack too much of socialism. Teach the lazy bastards to fish. Disregard that the rich SOB owns the lake.
Posted by keenanjay at 01/27/2009 @ 5:42pm
nice analogy! i'm gonna use that myself with 3d people i know.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by lrjones
The belching smelter stacks, drain pipes spewing toxic waste into rivers & streams & layers of pollution blanketing cities with the attending atmospheric drift were widespread at one time. People of good conscience addressed these problems & put us on the road to recovery.
The environmental concerns of earthmen were characterized by right wing nuts as a page out of the worldwide communist conspiracy. "Moderate" nuts saw it as the cost of doing business.
A few of these problems were solved due to persistent & intelligent activism. And now the right act as though they were part of the solution. I suppose if activist lives were spared & torture withheld, the right, with it's convoluted thinking can claim they're responsible for successes of the environmental movement!
What's your contingency plan for global warming, right wing? Aeriel bombardment & naval shelling of the icecaps? You could call it "the iced tea solution". A billion people consuming snow cones every day? And since most humor is based on other people's misfortunes, global warming should be a real howler! Take this & run with it, Rush!
Posted by Sorelish at 01/27/2009 @ 6:06pm
"Politicians and now energy companies like us to believe it is settled science because it provides a great source of revenue for both."
there's actually far more revenue to be had without changing at all. in fact, you have it precisely backwards: the politicians and the energy companies don't want us to know that is, in fact, settled science. they want us to continue living a lifestyle that has exceeded its limits, because it's profitable for them.
dude, you have to believe me on this one. climate change is happening and humans are, by far, the primary cause of it. there is simply no doubt this whatsoever. that is all i have to say about it, folks.
and this doesn't even touch the subject of lack of biodiversity. or clean air and water. or deforestation. those have been severely impacted by the relatively recent existence of climate change.
things were already really bad 30 years ago, when al gore first broached the subject with congress. now, coupled with climate change, we are truly fucked.
a recent report showed climate change's effects lasting well into the year 3000. yes, you read that right.
". My stand on the amendment is because judges are attempting to rewrite a definition that has stood among the civilizations of the world for over 5000 years."
judges do not engage in behavior that is beyond their obligation. if they so-called "rewrite a definition," it is because they have been called to do so. whether or not you agree with what they do, is not because of anything fundamentally wrong with the responsibilities of a judge, it is because there is something fundamentally wrong with your point of view, liberty.
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 6:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 5:58pm
So I guess you're in favor of making polygamy and polyandry legal, since historically marriage has been defined that way?
Posted by soperja at 01/27/2009 @ 6:35pm
Clinton triangulated with them and lost.
Obama should not entertain bipartisanship with these Nazis.
Posted by amacd at 01/27/2009 @ 6:46pm
Frosty will be on you for that one.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:48pm
Sandy: I want you to kill every gophers on the golf course!
Carl Spackler: Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers, they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key...
Sandy: Not golfers, you great fool! Gophers! The *little* *brown*, *furry* *rodents* -!
Carl Spackler: We can do that; we don't even have to have a reason.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 6:48pm
The House Republicans need to be prodded on economic solutions that are DIFFERENT than the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
It is smart to include Republicans, but EXCLUDE policies that have proven to be a failure. More of the same trickle-down economics that benefits the wealthy shouldn't be considered at all UNLESS firm strings are attached to the tax breaks so that REAL jobs are created, REAL homes are saved from foreclosure, or REAL increased lending activity to consumers and small businesses from banks are a direct consequence of the policy.
Simply HOPING that money trickles down will no longer be sufficient, the money must be tied to meaningful action that directly stimulates the economy and softens the landing for those affected.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2009 @ 6:52pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 6:51pm
Whoa there, hoss, don't backtrack on me now. You said that since historically marriage has been defined as the union of one man and one woman, we are wrong to define it otherwise. Then you admitted that marriage has also historically been defined as the union of one man with many women or as the union of one woman with many men. So, by your logic, we should make polygamy and polyandry legal since marriage has historically been defined to include those categories.
My point, of course, is that the meaning of marriage has evolved as society has evolved. It is only your arrogant self-righteousness that lets you believe that the way YOU define marriage has always been and always will be the proper definition of marriage. Talk about elitist snobbery!
Posted by soperja at 01/27/2009 @ 7:09pm
It's smart politics for Obama to listen to Republicans but bad policy to let them dictate his legislative agenda.
GIGO
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/27/2009 @ 7:30pm
"It may be the devil or it may be the lord but ya gotta SERVE SOMEBODY." - Bob Dylan
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/27/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 6:11pm
The first proposition is that climate change was, is and always will be occurring.
The second is don't believe everything you read.
Dude-ess we don't do science in our neck of the woods on that basis, I guess mainly because science is only verifiable by physical observation so faith in your reading list doesn't really cut the ice for us.
If you like to check with one of the fathers of the greenhouse gas effect, Svente Arrhenius, you will find that he got very excited about the prospect of the CO2 emissions from industry, making the earth, particularly freezing cold climes like parts of Europe and parts of your country a veritable garden of Eden. It seems to me that this message got perverted when your doomsday crowd got hold of his theory as a tool to scare the living daylights out of the rest of us.
Svente's projection was that a doubling in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would give rise to a few degrees C rise in average global temperature. Al Gore's not too merry band of ACC fanatics haven't really got much more to go on than old Svente's calculations.
Now here's the rub, those few degrees rise in average global temperature need a CO2 concentration of about 560 ppm in the atmosphere and guess what, it is only about 380 ppm right now. So we shouldn't expect anything much CC wise from CO2 just now. That of course doesn't deter your mates who want to scare the shit out of us so they have discovered a feed back "amplifier" effect and focus on the albedo effect but of course those effects would still occur in the same manner with natural global warming.
Here's a dude-ess aka an Aussie sheila who is also a biologist whom you can read without having to sit on the toilet:
www.jennifermar0hasy.com/blogs/
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 7:47pm
If Obama led the nation following Jesus' principles (help me out here, folks)
The street would see an enraged public servant closing the doors (at a minimum) to the brokerage houses
Those that direct their efforts to feeding the hungry, healing the helpless, housing the dispossessed, and educating the oppressed for whom ignorance is desirable only for the oppressors, would find their resources geometrically expanded as a function of need
Those that support capital punishment, collective punishment aka war, and asses that rationalize the legitimacy of the aforementioned would be seriously dissed with the application of flawless logic.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/27/2009 @ 7:52pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 7:36pm
What am I reading that isn't there? You posted:
"...a definition that has stood among the civilizations of the world for over 5000 years".
and
"It might involve polygamy at times..."
So in your posts you've stated that marriage has not had a static definition throughout mankind's history.
Established terms are constantly being redefined, hate to break it to you. For instance, did you know that 'gay' used to mean 'happy' and not 'homosexual'?
I don't think civilization started to break down when that word got redefined, do you?
I haven't heard anyone, left or right, contend that words don't have meanings. What those of us in a reality-based world can understand is that meanings change as society changes.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that change is bad, a view which stems from their own self-centeredness in believing that the way things are around them currently is the best possible way they could be, which is quite destructive to societies (as we've seen here in the USA) as progress is necessary to thrive, and lack of progress leads to stagnation and decline.
Posted by soperja at 01/27/2009 @ 7:57pm
I don't know why so many of you spend so much time arguing with Darlaloonietoon..
She spends most of her time stoned...
She obviously hasn't spent any time in even a remdial middle school science class...forget the whole subject. You will be taxed to death on carbon, gas and other made up excuses to enter your wallet...then most will wake up to the fraud..but the people are not ready yet...
and when they do, Mask might be surprised how many votes a candiate will get who promises to eliminate all carbon taxes.
Over time the world will come to realize that man made carbon has no effect on climate short or long term...remember, ALGORE had a 10 year prediction a few years ago that the world would end...another 6 years to go and the carbon rates and climate will have not effected on the earth...
Also, according to polls that Bushfools loves so much..Global warming/cooling/whateveritisthistime has already fallen to the bottom of peoples concerns and will eventualy fall off the chart completely when...nothing happens.
As soon as ALGORE comes out of his winter hibernation and actualy is seen in anactualt debate on the sublect publicly, his idiot status will overwhelm even the madest global warming nut...and the issue will be rememebered as the folly of the 20th century.
Mean time, enjoy Daralaoons "logical" rambles as the entertainment that they really are...Hollywood under contract can't write stuff like she..enjoy it and be grateful ahe hasn't married into your family gene pool.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/27/2009 @ 7:58pm
"those few degrees rise in average global temperature need a CO2 concentration of about 560 ppm in the atmosphere and guess what, it is only about 380 ppm right now"
no they don't! and this doesn't calculate the problem of inertia within a climate system!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 8:01pm
"You will be taxed to death on carbon, gas and other made up excuses to enter your wallet...then most will wake up to the fraud..but the people are not ready yet"
ha, ha. people are ALREADY being taxed to death in the form of.....subsidies for coal-fired plants, oil & gas exploration, etc, etc. if global warming was so profitable, then why do the industry heads fight it like the plague, john (dolt)? and i'm the one who needs a remedial science class?
"Global warming/cooling/whateveritisthistime has already fallen to the bottom of peoples concerns and will eventualy fall off the chart completely when...nothing happens. "
this wouldn't have happened if.....your party and your president hadn't completely destroyed the country, the worst effects of which have recently manifested.
"Over time the world will come to realize that man made carbon has no effect on climate short or long term"
all of the most relevant data demonstrate precisely the opposite. i mean, john, i really think you are the one who shouldn't prance around insulting people for not having remedial science education, when you yourself are in complete and utter denial of what's really happening around you. but that really isn't surprising, given your tendency to be completely removed from the earth's natural cycles (sitting in airports, making deals, screwing your various blow-up dolls, etc).
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 8:10pm
no they don't! and this doesn't calculate the problem of inertia within a climate system!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 8:01pm
They did until your lads realised something didn't add up. That really indicates that the earth climate system is a lot more complex than the alarmists are letting on. John Christy (lead scientist at one time on IPCC) , who last time I checked, was not an alarmist and certainly not a fanatic, is aware of that complexity.
" inertia in the system" is just a fancy way of saying we haven't got a clue why the earth's climate won't play ball with the calculations we derived from our computer models.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 8:10pm
See what I mean?
Have another toke......
Yawn.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/27/2009 @ 8:15pm
See what I mean?
Have another toke......
Yawn.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/27/2009 @ 8:15pm
It's either Mask or the dude-ess. Not much choice you say.
BTW not too sure what sort of NDT your equipment does. I responded to you on a thread I can't readily locate. Most businesses are just getting back to work after the Christmas break (and annual 4-5 weeks holiday leave).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 8:21pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 8:21pm
Johnmaasch@yahoo.com for any info you might have or communication you may want to leave me so I am able to call you directly and explain.
Once you respond I will delete emai and coreespond on another.. Too many loons out there.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/27/2009 @ 8:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 4:01pm
And SJCHER, I would merely need a large mound of sand, with each particle the number of times you (and Rush of course) and others on the Right here will CONTINUE to try to deny global warming is real and man-made...
now LONG after you have lost the argument, since you couldn't even get the GOP nominee for President to deny it or even be ambivalent about it...
and that (and again $1000 if you want to bet against this) the 2012, 2020, 2024, ad infinitum Republican nominee will contradict McCain.
Ergo....why do you guys MATTER anymore???
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 8:53pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 8:45pm
Oh, conservatives believe in change alright. They'd like to change all the current laws back to what they were in the 1920s. But that's not progress, that's regression.
If you believe so strongly in progress, doesn't that make you a "progressive", which I was under the impression was a dirty word in faith-based circles.
Care to respond to any other points in my previous post, or have I left you dumbfounded? LOL
Posted by soperja at 01/27/2009 @ 8:57pm
LL wrote: "you need to look past your bias and see there is much more in the world than which you are aware of."
hahahahahahahaha!
this coming from a christian dogmatic who claims all other religious beliefs are wrong.
LL your arrogance and inconsistency is laughable.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 9:32pm
LL wrote: "you cannot suddenly decide that we no longer like the word male and so it will now legally be called a gopher."
Damn slaves. Don't they know they're never gonna be citizens. Oops - don't tell Barack Obama that!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/27/2009 @ 9:35pm
And SJCHER, I would merely need a large mound of sand, with each particle the number of times you (and Rush of course) and others on the Right here will CONTINUE to try to deny global warming is real and man-made... Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 8:53pm
a recent report showed climate change's effects lasting well into the year 3000. yes, you read that right. Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 6:11pm
Umm, I was wondering about the report from the National Climate Data Center, that said that global temps went DOWN in 2008. I'm sure that CO2 levels went up, and other GHG emissions went up. So, how did that happen? We've been assured by the consensus of scientists that warming is directly related to CO2 emissions. What's up with that?
I don't know a single forecaster who can predict the weather accurately out past 5 days. But, you say someone has published a forecast for the next 1000 YEARS? Wow.
Posted by twillie at 01/27/2009 @ 10:14pm
However, since the Obama administration will:
1. possibly let the terrorist darlings out of Guantanamo,
2. maybe leave Iraq before we should,
3. roll back the Patriot Act and the ability to "connect the dots",
4. have dialogue with Iran while they are developing their nuke,
5. put pressure on Israel to capitulate to Hamas murderers
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Please sjchermak: Tell Me You are PAID to enter these stupid comments! Your #1)Just HOW do You know these ARE Terrorist Darlings? Bush told You so?
#2) We should NEVER have BEEN in Iraq (Unless You BELIEVE the LIES We were told!)
#3) YOU Believe the 'Patriot Act' is a GOOD THING?! ( I HOPE Your 'God' can help You!)
#4) And You KNOW Iran is developing a Nuke HOW?! (Bush Again?!)
#5) Hamas Murderers? I sincerely doubt you can wrap Your mind around this, But MAYBE someone else reading You crap can: Example: A dog Owner (Israel) Isolates the dog, mistreats the dog, starves the dog and HIDES all these actions from everyone. Suprisingly, the dog bites the Owner. Then to "impress" Friends, the Owner tells all the Friends the dog bit the Owner and MUST be punished! To punish the dog who used it teeth, The Owner counters by using anything & everything the Owner can get hands on: Base ball bats, bazookas, bombs & even the Mack Truck down the street! Then, when the TRUTH comes out about HOW the Owner treated the dog BEFORE it bit back, The Owner wants SYMPATHY! "I was just PROTECTING MYSELF!"
Yes, You can wrap Yourself up with Your "god"! and FLUSH! Is it any wonder People like Me cannot STAND Your 'view' of 'god'?! It MUST be very comforting to read ONLY those passages You WANT to to justify ANY Crime You want to!
Posted by madmax427 at 01/27/2009 @ 10:20pm
GOP policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.)
that's because the middle class is poor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:01am
golfing is REALLY bad for the environment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:04am
Maybe it will be good to see this country fall because of the evil that fills hearts to promote infanticide, homosexuality and other perversions.
you forgot to include clusterbombs.
If it takes our being cast down in the moral mud, maybe some will turn back to G-d. I'm not hopeful though. The bible makes it clear that people will turn from doing what is right and instead give in to every form of moral decadence.
you mean like making clusterbombs.
Obama and this Congress may be just the ticket to abandoning everything that was ever good about this nation and instead becoming a cesspool of sin and degradation.
only if he attacks iran, too.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:12am
6. God knows what else
Posted by sjchermak at 01/27/2009 @ 1:17pm
free viagara! nudge, nudge.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:13am
There is so much more, but that is a glimpse into the fallacy of "manmade causation" of so-called global warming.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 1:20pm
larry,
let's say you've got a room with 1,000,000 plants and a candle.
you proceed to remove the plants and replace each one with another candle.
will the temperature go up?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:15am
swamps are so beautiful, as is the desert.
the most barren place i know of is between sjchumsmack's ears.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:17am
turn the swamp into a golf course?
only a human could be so stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:18am
you'd think a man named "boner" would be concerned about contraception...
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:19am
"(golf courses) provide an environment for a large range of living species that otherwise wouldn't exist." yeah, arrogant, sexist, white republicans!
Posted by darladoon at 01/27/2009 @ 1:31pm
and lesbians ;+[
"Lesbian Golf Tour Launched
It's no secret that golfing is a hot sport among lesbians. Now, there's a national golf tour aimed at the lesbian community. The foreUS Women's Golf Tour officially kicks off today, with the announcement of tournament dates for the coming year."
"The inaugural tournament will be held on March 25-26, 2007 at the Doral Desert Princess Golf Resort in Palm Springs , CA . That will be followed by the second tournament Aug. 11-12 in San Francisco , CA . Las Vegas Nevada will be the site of the national championship Oct 20-21."
http://www.outsports.com/women/20061218foreus.htm
sorry, darla. couldn't resist. i thought your comeback was excellent, as are your posts in general.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:23am
We could become a 3rd world nation which would please a number of the bloggers here (like Frosty). Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:01pm
why would that please me?
i'd like y'all to be more peaceful, though.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:28am
frosty--how dare you compare our planet to a greenhouse?
we've got a nice big hole in the ozone. burn the fossil fuels baby!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 12:30am
Collapse the hole nearest to the largest mound, back away twenty feet, wait quietly for approx. 5 minutes, and shoot them with a .410 Posted by Benchrest at 01/27/2009 @ 2:39pm
Frosty will be on you for that one. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:48pm
use a clusterbomb instead.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:32am
"but you cannot redefine an established term.
You cannot suddenly decide that we no longer like the word male and so it will now legally be called gopher. "
Except that a gopher isn't an artificial man-made legal institution. Marriage is, and reflects a change in the legal status of those who are connected by it. Consequently, one can adjust the eligibility requirements.
Posted by brunowe at 01/28/2009 @ 12:32am
She spends most of her time stoned...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/27/2009 @ 7:58pm
hmmmm.
tell us about your drug habit, brewmeister.
how many siblings do you have?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:33am
The scientific evidence for continual natural climate change is overwhelming and the anthropogenic contribution, in a highly complex little understood earth climate system, is at best circumstantial and still a matter of conjecture.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
maybe. but oil is poison. are you ready for more wars?
don't forget we were right about CFCs/ozone.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:35am
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:35am
Except that a gopher isn't an artificial man-made legal institution. Marriage is, and reflects a change in the legal status of those who are connected by it. Consequently, one can adjust the eligibility requirements.
Posted by brunowe at 01/28/2009 @ 12:32am
i say we scrap the word completely.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:38am
LRJones might've mentioned that Dr. Marhosy is on the payroll of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian equivalent to the American Enterprise Institute. It gets much of its funding from tobacco, mining and irrigation companies.
He might also have mentioned that her prior track record included stating the the Murray-Darling river basin was in good health (thus obviating the need to, for example, limit the action of irrigation companies in taking water from it).
Recent events have gone quite the other way. http://www.economist.com/ theworldin/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12494531
Posted by brunowe at 01/28/2009 @ 12:46am
don't worry brunowe:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/
mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:00am
holy frontal attack!
that is one massive storm!
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:07am
"She spends most of her time stoned..."
30 years ago, perhaps. but not these days. never in the morning (unless it's my birthday); and only after darla's tended to her plants, her animals, and her kitchen.
and keep in mind, mr. maasch, i almost never drink. i imagine you are a drinker? if i am correct, what gives? what's the difference between two drinks and two puffs? (puffs of darla's herb are a different story, but my point still stands.)
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 01:23am
"" inertia in the system" is just a fancy way of saying we haven't got a clue why the earth's climate won't play ball with the calculations we derived from our computer models."
wtf? do you even know what inertia is? hint: it's not "fancy."
""Lesbian Golf Tour Launched"
frosty, not offended. a lot of lesbians play sports, golf especially. not surprising, and stupidity doesn't discriminate.
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 01:30am
i knew you wouldn't be, sister.
and happy birthday, ;+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:38am
god luck, mr. obama:
http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/mojo-photo-madbarack.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:40am
god luck???
hahahaha
well, he's gonna need it.
we're gonna need it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:44am
maaschporn:
http://www.sarahpac.com/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:44am
FOR IBBS:
Who Should Progressives Root for in the Super Bowl?
So you're not a Pittsburgh Steelers fan and you're not an Arizona Cardinals fan, but you've been invited to a Super Bowl party and you need to know who to root for. Before you pick the Cardinals because you're a progressive and you love underdogs, I urge you to consider a few facts.
Dan Rooney, the 76-year-old owner of the Steelers and a lifelong Republican, endorsed Obama and stumped for him not just in Pennsylvania but in the surrounding swing states. He did so despite the fact that Obama's promise of increased taxes on the wealthy forced Rooney's family to restructure the ownership of the team. Head coach Mike Tomlin is a vocal Obama supporter. At a recent press conference he said, "Barack is selling hope. And I'm buying." Steelers players have spoken out about how they hope to win the Super Bowl in part because it would mean they would be the first championship sports team to visit Obama's White House. (Also worth noting: Barack Obama grew up a Steelers fan and is rooting for the Steel Curtain on Sunday.)
The Bidwell family, longtime owners of the Cardinals, are major Republican donors. Their donor history can be found on opensecrets.org, but to save you time, I'll point you to a couple links. The LA Times reports that team President William Bidwell and Vice President Michael Bidwell each gave $50,000 to Republicans this past election season. Politico adds that as fundraisers for McCain, they bundled upwards of $350,000 for the Republican presidential candidate.
Mull that over as you tip back your favorite adult beverage on Sunday evening. I think your choice is clear.
Update: More proof! Arizona's starting quarterback Kurt Warner appeared in an advertisement opposing stem cell research in 2006.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 01:47am
on the issue of funding 'family planning':
"the family planning provision, as Democrats have pointed out, does not mandate either limits to family size or eugenics but, rather, as Talking Points Memo noted, would expand "the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies."
"Moreover, studies have shown that family planning services, particularly contraceptive use, do indeed save the government money. For example, a 2008 Guttmacher Institute study found that "[n]ationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth costs." The authors of the 2008 study calculated the savings from avoidance of unwanted pregnancies by "comparing the public-sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred." The study did not calculate savings that would have resulted from "averted abortions (or miscarriages)." Additionally, abortion was not included as a "contraceptive method" used by the study's "respondents who had received public-sector family planning care in the past year." From the report:
Calculating savings. We calculated public-sector savings by comparing the public sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred had these unintended births not been prevented. We did not estimate public-sector savings that would result from averted abortions (or miscarriages). Because few abortions are covered by Medicaid and their costs are relatively low compared with the costs of a birth, the savings from averted abortions would be negligible relative to the savings from averted births."
consider it...
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 02:18am
"Update: More proof! Arizona's starting quarterback Kurt Warner appeared in an advertisement opposing stem cell research in 2006."
well, as they say, "dumb as dirt." that's pretty much the prevailing personality in arizona. i love the landscape there, but man, arizonans are soooooooo dumb.
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 02:20am
contrary to what many right wingers here have claimed, there is no "constitutional" issue with funding family planning in the stimulus package. there are specific christian (and idiotic) republicans who are (simply put) morally outraged that ms. pelosi had suggested we "reduce costs" by preventing unwanted pregnancies.
numerous media stars suggested that ms. pelosi meant that we would adopt a 'one-child' policy, when in fact, ms. pelosi was merely adopting the position of your typical fiscal conservative.
how strange is that?
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 02:25am
btw, conservatives, fiscal stimulus also includes the idea of SAVING MONEY, and not just spending it.
Posted by darladoon at 01/28/2009 @ 02:26am
Here's to all of you NEO"CON"SERVATIVES: Since your only frame of reference for leadership has been "CON"men out to interpret the Constitution for their own political and personal gain while occupying the White House Walls, Allow me to enlighten you! President Barak Obama has not declared himself "THE DECIDER" in any manner of dictatorial implication thereof. Do any of you naysayers who have written such foul criticisms bother to think before you touch a keyboard? It doesn't appear so. President Obama regardless of Party Affiliation is probably the first qualified Person to become President of these United States since our Constitution was written. He is not a politician but a scholar of the Constitution of the United States of America who campaigned on a Government OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOLE FOR THE PEOPLE-SOUND FAMILIAR OR DID YOU FAIL HIGH SCHOOL GOVERNMENT CLASS? Now if you feel that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights makes this Country Socialistic, why don't you all pack up and go back to your ancestral European Lands? Anyone who accuses This President and the Democratic Party of making this society into a Socialistic State is whining because they are not getting their distorted selfish way and are being asked to share the responsibility of the mess that their political affiliates put this country into. So while you are out there sucking your thumbs soothsaying, KNOW THIS: Pres. Obama has the Best advisors on his National Defense Team and will make no decisions concerning Iraq or Iran without consulting them. Do any of you know anything about a DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT? DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT A FUNCTINAL LEADER DOES? irth control is the single most cost effective measure of Health Care Worldwide. Do the Repubs Say it-they don't want you to know/care.
Posted by whitefeather at 01/28/2009 @ 09:02am
charles mingus and cesar chavez were from arizona.......
they ain't dumb.
kurt warner is from iowa....
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 09:20am
Posted by whitefeather at 01/28/2009 @ 09:02am
whtie, small bit of advice....
spacing.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 09:30am
Partisanship's great. It has its place.
It's now 12:07 P.M. Detroit Time, and Billy Kristol is still a smarmy little schmuck.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/28/2009 @ 12:07pm
Snowing like hell here again, too. Why the didn't I see any of you at the Auto Show?
What's the matter with you people?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/28/2009 @ 12:10pm
In the realm of partisanship, particularly labeling:
According to today's Detroit News, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seriously lowering expectations as to outcome in our Afghanistan adventure.
Is Gates a commie pinko lefty now?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/28/2009 @ 12:44pm
To wit:
"Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose," Gates said, referring to a haven of purity in Norse mythology. "Nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money, to be honest." (Credit to Ann Scott Tyson of the Washington Post 1/28/09 as reprinted in the Detroit News, our once-great local which we affectionately call "the sleeping giant").
[I think he may have meant to say Shangri-La, perhaps, rather than Valhalla.]
Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/28/2009 @ 12:51pm
A-a-aaaaaaaaaaaah, a-a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/28/2009 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are correct, Heinz
he could hardly have meant Valhalla, which is a place for the dead, dead warriors to be specific.
well, maybe that's what he meant after all.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/28/2009 @ 5:07pm