| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2008 10:22:33 AM · #501 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And of course the conservatives have done wonders for our great state. Engler was such a treasure, eviscerating the State Police and all and let's not forget Mike Cox and the current brand of nutjobs in charge of the State legislature who'd rather fight with Granholm or each other than actually get anything done.
Becoming "competitive" by allowing companies to spew the same toxins into the Great Lakes that they can in China makes is a great idea. |
You cannot blame our current condition on the Republicans. As much as everything is "Bushes" fault, I must challenge you that in our state, it is the Democrats who are and have been in control. It is the Democrats that govern nearly every major city with disastrous results in economies and graduation rates. It is the democrats here on this site that are opposing requirements to have children of families on government assistance, stay in school and maintain at least a "C" average and graduate to continue receiving funds. It is the liberal mindset that continues to support giving giving giving, as long as they first take it from someone else. Then they do not require accountability on the funds given.
We have 2 separate ways of looking at things, and for me, the conservative line of thought that incorporates accountability mixed with freely given charity, is far superior to the current result we see in our state, after years and years of liberal policies. |
You talk as if that control was certain and absolute.
The Democrats are in control?? Since when? Sure, a democrat is in the Governor's office and they have a narrow margin in the House, but who controls the Senate and the AG's office? The Michigan Senate and AG have done nothing but play partisan asshattery since Granholm has been elected.
I find it oddly hypocritical that conservatives here in Michigan assert that the Democrats have "control" and thus are to blame for the state's woes, yet at the Federal level, where the roles are reversed, conservatives are just as quick to condemn the Democrats for playing the same partisan games that conservatives are playing at the state level.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2008 12:41:10 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You talk as if that control was certain and absolute.
The Democrats are in control?? Since when? Sure, a democrat is in the Governor's office and they have a narrow margin in the House, but who controls the Senate and the AG's office? The Michigan Senate and AG have done nothing but play partisan asshattery since Granholm has been elected.
I find it oddly hypocritical that conservatives here in Michigan assert that the Democrats have "control" and thus are to blame for the state's woes, yet at the Federal level, where the roles are reversed, conservatives are just as quick to condemn the Democrats for playing the same partisan games that conservatives are playing at the state level. |
This is a very interesting response coming from the left. I would actually agree with you in the sense that it is not one persons fault. Just like all the ills in our nation today are not the fault of our current President. However, that is not the banter that keeps reverberating from the left.
My point in insisting that the "socialist liberal democrats" as in our govenor and big city mayors was the root cause of our ills, was specifically to use the exact same method to paint all the ills on the administration. Thus if the Govenor and mayor's are not to blame, then neither can the President be the blame for all our ills. I'm glad to see we agree.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2008 12:47:22 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You talk as if that control was certain and absolute.
The Democrats are in control?? Since when? Sure, a democrat is in the Governor's office and they have a narrow margin in the House, but who controls the Senate and the AG's office? The Michigan Senate and AG have done nothing but play partisan asshattery since Granholm has been elected.
I find it oddly hypocritical that conservatives here in Michigan assert that the Democrats have "control" and thus are to blame for the state's woes, yet at the Federal level, where the roles are reversed, conservatives are just as quick to condemn the Democrats for playing the same partisan games that conservatives are playing at the state level. |
This is a very interesting response coming from the left. I would actually agree with you in the sense that it is not one persons fault. Just like all the ills in our nation today are not the fault of our current President. However, that is not the banter that keeps reverberating from the left.
My point in insisting that the "socialist liberal democrats" as in our govenor and big city mayors was the root cause of our ills, was specifically to use the exact same method to paint all the ills on the administration. Thus if the Govenor and mayor's are not to blame, then neither can the President be the blame for all our ills. I'm glad to see we agree. |
Please don't assume that I'm necessarily "from the left". I personally hold many conservative values, but that discussion is for another time and place I think.
Keep in mind that until recently, the Republicans had control of the White House as well as a majority in both the House and Senate.
Granholm has not had a similar luxury during her service.
Message edited by author 2008-04-02 12:51:01. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 12:51:00 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You talk as if that control was certain and absolute.
The Democrats are in control?? Since when? Sure, a democrat is in the Governor's office and they have a narrow margin in the House, but who controls the Senate and the AG's office? The Michigan Senate and AG have done nothing but play partisan asshattery since Granholm has been elected.
I find it oddly hypocritical that conservatives here in Michigan assert that the Democrats have "control" and thus are to blame for the state's woes, yet at the Federal level, where the roles are reversed, conservatives are just as quick to condemn the Democrats for playing the same partisan games that conservatives are playing at the state level. |
This is a very interesting response coming from the left. I would actually agree with you in the sense that it is not one persons fault. Just like all the ills in our nation today are not the fault of our current President. However, that is not the banter that keeps reverberating from the left.
My point in insisting that the "socialist liberal democrats" as in our govenor and big city mayors was the root cause of our ills, was specifically to use the exact same method to paint all the ills on the administration. Thus if the Govenor and mayor's are not to blame, then neither can the President be the blame for all our ills. I'm glad to see we agree.
|
Your side sure blamed Bill Clinton for everything under the sun. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 02:06:30 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your side sure blamed Bill Clinton for everything under the sun. |
Only because he was guilty of everything under the sun...
and if Hillary is any indication of whats to come, her truthfullness meter is in need of a recharge. Too many (even Democrats) don't trust her.
It is interesting to me that the one person who intimately knows the Clintons (Al Gore) is mum on his support, even rejecting the position of brokering an agreement between Barack and Hillary. Says me, it might have something to do with how detestable the Clinton's are - not that he won't support her if she gets the nomination, just that he has no intention of crossing her - yet. He wants to live a while longer. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 02:18:07 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Please don't assume that I'm necessarily "from the left". I personally hold many conservative values, but that discussion is for another time and place I think.
Keep in mind that until recently, the Republicans had control of the White House as well as a majority in both the House and Senate.
Granholm has not had a similar luxury during her service. |
Actually I really think we agree on much more than we disagree. I also, having met you, think you are a respected and contributing member of scoiety. I actually think you enjoy countering whatever my position is (generally), simply for the sport of it. That said, sometimes I have to conceed your points.
My latest points are simply, that ownership of a thing (Federal, State, local) does in fact lay at the feet of the senior administrator. Federally it is Bush. States belong to the Governor. And Municipalities belong to the Mayors. A 24% graduation rate in Detroit is not Bush's fault. It squarely lies at the feet of the Governor and the Mayor and their failure to address a broken process. When I further look at big cities around our state and country and see overwhelming evidence of Democratically led Municipalities who are failing, I must question the philosophical doctrine that they bring to office. In my opinion, one failing, is the eagerness (liberals have) to make excuses for thsoe who choose to not carry their own water - generation after generation. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 02:34:05 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your side sure blamed Bill Clinton for everything under the sun. |
Only because he was guilty of everything under the sun...
|
Well then don't be surprised or offended when people ask GW to be accoutable for the Iraq fiasco, the soaring deficit, the declining economy, and the loss of world wide respect for the country, because that's all on him. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 02:39:33 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Please don't assume that I'm necessarily "from the left". I personally hold many conservative values, but that discussion is for another time and place I think.
Keep in mind that until recently, the Republicans had control of the White House as well as a majority in both the House and Senate.
Granholm has not had a similar luxury during her service. |
Actually I really think we agree on much more than we disagree. I also, having met you, think you are a respected and contributing member of scoiety. I actually think you enjoy countering whatever my position is (generally), simply for the sport of it. That said, sometimes I have to conceed your points. |
I think we do agree on a great many things, it's the role of the goverment in those things that we disagree on. Yes, sometimes I do.
Originally posted by Flash:
My latest points are simply, that ownership of a thing (Federal, State, local) does in fact lay at the feet of the senior administrator. Federally it is Bush. States belong to the Governor. And Municipalities belong to the Mayors. A 24% graduation rate in Detroit is not Bush's fault. It squarely lies at the feet of the Governor and the Mayor and their failure to address a broken process. When I further look at big cities around our state and country and see overwhelming evidence of Democratically led Municipalities who are failing, I must question the philosophical doctrine that they bring to office. In my opinion, one failing, is the eagerness (liberals have) to make excuses for thsoe who choose to not carry their own water - generation after generation. |
Then the blame for the duck-cluster quagmire in Iraq and the resulting arterial spray of dollars must lay at Bush's feet. IMO, te resulting deaths and squandering of material and financial assets is a far greater tragedy than the low graduation rates and moral shortcomings of the mayor in Detroit. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 02:45:37 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your side sure blamed Bill Clinton for everything under the sun. |
Only because he was guilty of everything under the sun...
|
Well then don't be surprised or offended when people ask GW to be accoutable for the Iraq fiasco, the soaring deficit, the declining economy, and the loss of world wide respect for the country, because that's all on him. |
Surely you do not blame GW for the 24% graduation rate in Detroit - do you? The same rate that will send 75% of those that could have graduated to the unemployment lines and thus a burden upon society, not only for themselves but likely their offspring as well? You do agree that those failures are directly the result of extensive social liberal policies that excused the very behavior that resulted in this abysmal 24% graduation rate - don't you? |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 03:19:21 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Your side sure blamed Bill Clinton for everything under the sun. |
Only because he was guilty of everything under the sun...
|
Well then don't be surprised or offended when people ask GW to be accoutable for the Iraq fiasco, the soaring deficit, the declining economy, and the loss of world wide respect for the country, because that's all on him. |
Surely you do not blame GW for the 24% graduation rate in Detroit - do you? The same rate that will send 75% of those that could have graduated to the unemployment lines and thus a burden upon society, not only for themselves but likely their offspring as well? You do agree that those failures are directly the result of extensive social liberal policies that excused the very behavior that resulted in this abysmal 24% graduation rate - don't you? |
I see no connection between so called lineral social policies and the graduation rate, maybe I missed that post but it sounds like a stretch to me.
How about the the consevatives total disregard for any kind of support for public education? And their ability to keep a straight face while argueing that taking money away from public schools and giving it to private schools will somehow make the public schools better. You might be able to connect the dots better with that group.
Message edited by author 2008-04-02 15:19:56. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 03:49:20 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I see no connection between so called lineral social policies and the graduation rate, maybe I missed that post but it sounds like a stretch to me. |
This explains a great deal on how we (differently) view the world.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
How about the the consevatives total disregard for any kind of support for public education? And their ability to keep a straight face while argueing that taking money away from public schools and giving it to private schools will somehow make the public schools better. You might be able to connect the dots better with that group. |
I think you have taken some liberties here and may not quite be on track with what conservatives think. Most conservatives (myself as an example) have paid property taxes for decades - supporting public education. It is when the private sector can do it better (and in many cases less expensively), then conservatives feel that parents should have a choice and be able to exercise a portion of their tax money to offset the election of private school. Afterall, it is educated, contributing members that we are really after - correct?
When my taxes that support public education result in a 24% graduation rate, then by any business formula, it is in serious need of review. What is suprising is the liberal's resistence to fixing the problem and instead their continued demand to throw more money into a failed enterprise (not all public schools are failed enterprises - but some clearly need a different direction). The liberals position of raising taxes even more, to give to those systems that can't effectively use what they have now, is not good business. The voucher proposals, that allow parents to choose where their children can best be educated is a solid answer for some locations. The liberals demand that perochial schools be excluded is another example of their mis-guided interests and their failing to consider the benefit of the child foremost, as opposed to their political selfpreservation ideology. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 09:23:01 AM · #512 |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 09:35:36 AM · #513 |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 10:32:19 AM · #514 |
I especially like this sentence. "Much of the continent is not warming and some parts are even cooling, Vaughan said."
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 02:58:17 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I especially like this sentence. "Much of the continent is not warming and some parts are even cooling, Vaughan said." |
Notice how it was tucked away at the very end and not elaborated on. Awesome! Keep the BS a rollin.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:01:56 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Notice how it was tucked away at the very end and not elaborated on. Awesome! Keep the BS a rollin. |
here's some more BS - even promoted by J McCain.
It really is important to keep challenging all these claims. The hype can get away from you if you're not careful. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 08:11:30 AM · #517 |
I was told to continue the discussion that started in the "Going Green" thread here. So, coming back to the main topic, a few thoughts on global warming:
First: The people telling you that global warming is a hoax are the same people (using the same tactics) who said that smoking tobacco is harmless. And they're doing it for the same reason: Making money, money, money.
More recently, some of those people also said "4 dollar gas? Hahahaha, such nonsense. That will never happen." or "Housing bubble? You must be kidding me! Now is the time to invest!". (or "We will be greated as liberators! It'll last six days, maybe six weeks, I doubt six months.") It's about money, money, money in all cases. People were being paid to tell you that smoking is harmless; now they are being paid to tell you that global warming is nonsense.
Second: Some people here ask "Why the PEACE prize?". I'll tell you: If temperatures rise, it won't just get a bit warmer. The flora and fauna will change significantly (imagine getting Malaria in Chicago) and there will be droughts leading to conflicts over resources, for example. Remember the food riots we've just seen?
Third (and this is most important in my opinion): No one knows for sure how the climate will develop exactly, I think we can all agreee on that. However, I think we all understand that if global warming is indeed real, the consequences will be dramatic. So for the sake of the argument, let's assume that there's only a 10% probability that global warming will be as bad as Gore & friends claim. Even in this case we should take measures to reduce pollution, conserve resources and promote sustainable technologies - just as an insurance. It's comparatively cheap (unless you're super greedy).
Fourth: This is why humanity is doomed: //dieoff.org/page95.htm
P.S.: To all Americans: You have to realize that your media are extremely biased. Just look what they turned the presidential campaign into: flag pins, haircut costs, games of six degrees of separation, etc. They do this on purpose. You should wonder why.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 08:11:44. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 09:20:24 AM · #518 |
Not all Americans are blind to media manipulation (though some still insist on calling it the "liberal media", guffaw) nor to the realities of global warming.
Btw, don't you know that conservatives can now safely believe in global warming? John McCain has removed it from the tree-hugger camp and made it about national security.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:46:33 AM · #519 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I was told to continue the discussion that started in the "Going Green" thread here. So, coming back to the main topic, a few thoughts on global warming:
First: The people telling you that global warming is a hoax are the same people (using the same tactics) who said that smoking tobacco is harmless. And they're doing it for the same reason: Making money, money, money.
More recently, some of those people also said "4 dollar gas? Hahahaha, such nonsense. That will never happen." or "Housing bubble? You must be kidding me! Now is the time to invest!". (or "We will be greated as liberators! It'll last six days, maybe six weeks, I doubt six months.") It's about money, money, money in all cases. People were being paid to tell you that smoking is harmless; now they are being paid to tell you that global warming is nonsense.
Second: Some people here ask "Why the PEACE prize?". I'll tell you: If temperatures rise, it won't just get a bit warmer. The flora and fauna will change significantly (imagine getting Malaria in Chicago) and there will be droughts leading to conflicts over resources, for example. Remember the food riots we've just seen?
Third (and this is most important in my opinion): No one knows for sure how the climate will develop exactly, I think we can all agreee on that. However, I think we all understand that if global warming is indeed real, the consequences will be dramatic. So for the sake of the argument, let's assume that there's only a 10% probability that global warming will be as bad as Gore & friends claim. Even in this case we should take measures to reduce pollution, conserve resources and promote sustainable technologies - just as an insurance. It's comparatively cheap (unless you're super greedy).
Fourth: This is why humanity is doomed: //dieoff.org/page95.htm
P.S.: To all Americans: You have to realize that your media are extremely biased. Just look what they turned the presidential campaign into: flag pins, haircut costs, games of six degrees of separation, etc. They do this on purpose. You should wonder why. |
I believe that the "correct" terminology is not Global Warming, but rather, Climate Change because while the planet warms up and gets hotter, it will not be the same only hotter, but much else will change on our planet. Places like South Florida and the low countries in Europe will be underwater, displacing people on a scale that will make New Orleans after Katrina look like a vacation. Severe weather will become more severe, tornados, hurricanes and the like will be much more frequent and powerful. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:08:34 AM · #520 |
I still think that the issue is not whether there is credibility for global warming, I'm still not convinced that this trend may not be another cycle of what's been going on for millions of years, but that we as a species are fouling our nests and killing our planet.
And I still maintain that there are many of us that are, and have been very aware of this, for many years before Al Gore hitched his wagon to the hottest political topic going.
I just feel that this supposed "great thing" that Al Gore is doing cheapens the integrity of the Nobel.
We need to concentrate more on our own individual responsibilities at home and within our community......something Mr. Gore apparently does not do if his home in Tennessee is any indication.
Whatever happened to practicing what you preach, leading by example......
My $0.02 US........YMMV |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:56:41 AM · #521 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I still think that the issue is not whether there is credibility for global warming, I'm still not convinced that this trend may not be another cycle of what's been going on for millions of years, but that we as a species are fouling our nests and killing our planet.
And I still maintain that there are many of us that are, and have been very aware of this, for many years before Al Gore hitched his wagon to the hottest political topic going.
I just feel that this supposed "great thing" that Al Gore is doing cheapens the integrity of the Nobel.
We need to concentrate more on our own individual responsibilities at home and within our community......something Mr. Gore apparently does not do if his home in Tennessee is any indication.
Whatever happened to practicing what you preach, leading by example......
My $0.02 US........YMMV |
Regardless of what you think of Al Gore and the obvious bias that places for you on "believing" in Climate Change/Global Warming, unless something is done, in 50-100 years, your house will be in either the tropics or a great scorching desert. Maybe not a problem for you and me, but our kids will be pissed and rightfully so. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:08:42 PM · #522 |
It's commendable to take on personal responsibilities, but you can't expect everyone to do so, and you can bet that, without public pressure and reasonable laws, corporations won't put the future of the planet ahead of their own profits.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:35:20 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Regardless of what you think of Al Gore and the obvious bias that places for you on "believing" in Climate Change/Global Warming, unless something is done, in 50-100 years, your house will be in either the tropics or a great scorching desert. Maybe not a problem for you and me, but our kids will be pissed and rightfully so. |
That's my point.....it's irrelevant whether it's a cycle, global warming, a hex from aliens, whatever.......instead of just squaking about it, how about if we take some responsibility for it instead of just trying to grab the limelight because it's politically correct.
As Larry stated, there are people who won't take responsibility without a shot in the........arm, so we need to do more with pressure, but Al Gore certainly is less of a stellar example than an awful lot of people of my generation who did, and are doing their own thing in their communities.
And once again, it's said that "something must be done"......fine, do it!
People in my community are constantly trying to do better, and I'd like to think I'm a part of it. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:48:44 PM · #524 |
I hear you, Jeb, but the "something that must be done" can include having celebrities (even politicians) helping to raise rawareness. It can include us voting for officials who will do something about it instead of denying the science that says man is contributing. The current administration is deeply into oil; those folks are unlikely to spearhead a movement for serious energy conservation or alternate energy sources.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:53:39 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Regardless of what you think of Al Gore and the obvious bias that places for you on "believing" in Climate Change/Global Warming, unless something is done, in 50-100 years, your house will be in either the tropics or a great scorching desert. Maybe not a problem for you and me, but our kids will be pissed and rightfully so. |
That's my point.....it's irrelevant whether it's a cycle, global warming, a hex from aliens, whatever.......instead of just squaking about it, how about if we take some responsibility for it instead of just trying to grab the limelight because it's politically correct.
As Larry stated, there are people who won't take responsibility without a shot in the........arm, so we need to do more with pressure, but Al Gore certainly is less of a stellar example than an awful lot of people of my generation who did, and are doing their own thing in their communities.
And once again, it's said that "something must be done"......fine, do it!
People in my community are constantly trying to do better, and I'd like to think I'm a part of it. |
Regardless of your take on it or minor discrepancies in his data, Al Gore has done more to raise awareness of the issue with everyday people than anyone else. Period. You may not like Gore's politics, you may think he's the biggest hypocrit on the planet, but you can't deny what he's done to raise the issue to a higher level. |
|
