Conservatives need to treat environmental issues seriously and advance conservative responses, instead of acting like the whole thing is made up and then going on to say nothing further about it. A lot of bad leftist ideas have been allowed to linger this long precisely because there is only one side really having a conversation.
The notion that climate change is not happening at all and/or that it is happening but mankind has no impact on it at all, is not only absurd, it also requires the belief in a gigantic worldwide conspiracy that would dwarf "The Da Vinci Code." When liberals say "the debate is over," it is really those two points we're talking about--and, sorry guys, that debate IS over. Some gases trap heat. This was demonstrated back in the days of Arrhenius, and was he a big Democratic donor?
Acknowledge the baseline concepts, take a seat at the grown-up table, and by all means debate policy and responses. Heck, it's also pretty open to debate just how bad the problem will be, and if you even think any response at all is economically viable. But saying you're a "skeptic" about the very existence of AGW is a misuse of that term. It would be like if the Left had tried to participate in nuclear disarmament talks during the Cold War by "debating" whether atomic bombs exist in the first place or that they were "skeptical" of the principle of fission itself.Comment Posted By TTT On 21.04.2009 @ 10:12
cdor: Today's young people will never grow up to be conservative enough to discriminate against gay people, as you seem to believe. That's a mindset that will simply die off, not to be missed.
Young people today grew up with gay friends, classmates, and public figures. They will always remember that. It is utterly not an issue to them. When they get old enough to start making car payments, that will not erase their entire life experience and make them start hating gays for no reason.
Conservatives should have the class to not truculently try to block it until they all die. If they won't lead, just get out of the way.Comment Posted By TTT On 19.04.2009 @ 20:46
Why can't you admit your man is blowing it his first shot out of the box?
Like I said: show me where Obama said the equivalent of "Nobody could have foreseen that snow is cold." You talk about other peoples' "hypocrisy," yet the whole point here is that Bush's intellectual emptiness and cronyism made an already-guaranteed-bad problem just that much worse.Comment Posted By TTT On 2.02.2009 @ 13:24
^What Tim said. Also also, it was already mainstream engineering knowledge for half a century that the New Orleans levees had failed numerous times, yet Bush was all DUURRRR WUT HYUK HYUK? Wake me when Obama says he never knew snow was cold.
But, hey, sure, let's talk about those poor frozen people in Kentucky. Why don't they have power? Because the iced-up tree limbs fell down and snapped the hanging powerlines. You know how you prevent that? With massive infrastructure programs to construct an underground power grid, which is what Obama proposed, but apparently it's "socialism", so conservatives would prefer people continue to die.
Very nice try - admirable spin. You should get a job at the DNC.
The "underground power grid" will take two decades to complete. How something Obama has only proposed could possibly be used to justify his inaction and apparent unconcern with the people of the Midwest who are suffering is beyond belief. Changing the subject won't save Obama from being held to the same standard that Bush was held to - especially since the levies were ignored under both Democratic and Republican congresses and administration.
Why can't you admit your man is blowing it his first shot out of the box?
ed.Comment Posted By TTT On 2.02.2009 @ 10:27
Magoo McCain's entire candidacy is based on mindless sentiment. You want him president because he's your "hero" and "maverick". The slogans bandied about on his behalf couldn't possibly be more cliched and empty than if you just came out and called him Mister Fantastic or Mighty Mouse.
If you actually care about his dubious "heroism", and think being captured by the enemy makes you presidential material, then you're thinking with your yellow-ribbon bumper sticker and not your brain. If you think he has ANY principles or policies that he won't abandon like his crippled first wife, then you're just purely making it up, since there is absolutely no real evidence to support such a view.
Why can't McCain seal the deal? He's been in D.C. for 26 years (when he says our current energy problems are 30 years in the making, hmm), he openly boasts that the media is his constituency and they sure as hell act the part with their fawning over his made-up "maverick" pseudopersona, and he has name recognition approximately that of Pringles. Why is he stuck below 50%? Why can't he reach out beyond the Bush personality cult dead-enders, the extremely elderly, and people who believe forwarded emails from Paypal-at-aol.co telling them to input all their security information?Comment Posted By TTT On 11.08.2008 @ 16:44
[Hillary] was actually in the process of building an entirely new Democratic party coalition – one that resembled the old FDR New Deal grouping with not urban elites as the centerpiece of the machine but rather lunch pail Democrats and seniors as her base.
Another reason I'm happy she lost.
She knew she could never seal the deal with anyone other than uneducated racist senior citizens, and so she went about deliberately trying to alienate as many Democrats and independents as possible, so that only the die-hard identity crusaders would care enough to stick around and vote. It would have been the only way for her to win.
We face unprecedented challenges. Our young creative classes are saddled with unheard-of educational debts, the housing crisis, the near-certainty that we have already passed Peak Oil, and the looming end of longstanding political / economic entitlements such as Social Security, pensions, and retirement. With that in mind, it is folly to try to reorient politics around the sensitivities of of 80-year-olds. They've already had their lives; they already have their homes; their children are already fed; their Social Security payments are assured. They don't understand modern problems, and it would be little less than perverse to give them a disproportionate voice in picking the one who will have to deal with those problems. Speaking of senior citizens, let's not forget it was McSame who actually boasted of being "a 20th-century kind of guy."
And what's so bad about the 50+% of Americans who live in urban areas?Comment Posted By TTT On 5.06.2008 @ 16:32
Syn, post #1:
You really have no idea what Jewish Americans have to deal with. It is clueless and patronizing to suggest that all you need to do to earn their trust is to support the state of Israel. All of the candidates of both major parties support the state of Israel, so obviously it takes more than that.
Jews mostly vote Democrat because they recognize that the Republican Party's evangelical leaders are vicious anti-Semites. Hagee is typical, no different from Robertson and Falwell. He wants America to be a "Christian Nation," with special rights and privileges for Christians and a lessening of secularism, pluralism, and tolerance for minorities. Hagee and his ilk see every Jew as a dead body waiting to come out. Their entire worldview centers around the extermination of Judaism, through conversion and eventually Holocaust 2 (aka "the Rapture"), which they never ever ever EVER stop talking about. Past Jew-killings were justified, future Jew-killings are ordained. None of them has ever, or will ever, acknowledged Judaism as a viable sustainable religion, culture, or way of life.
Jew-haters like Hagee and Robertson can keep their bribe money. They only want to protect Israel to hasten the day when all the Jews are consumed by fire, as foretold in their evil anti-Semitic armageddonist exterminationist fantasies.
THAT is why most Jews don't vote Republican and never will.Comment Posted By TTT On 24.05.2008 @ 11:07
And if he had FEW supporters (like McCain), you'd criticize him for that too.
Rick, remember how other right-wingers tried to wave off critics of Dubya as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and said simply not-liking Bush was proof you were CRAAAAAAZY and should be ignored?
Gosh, that argument looked so very relevant up to and after the 2006 elections, right?
Same thing here. Once again you seem gleefully determined to portray all of Obama's supporters as crazy, the very act of supporting him being that of a brainwashed madman. You're working very, very hard to ignore everything about the candidate and his campaign, and I hope the memories of all your enjoyable doublethink will comfort you after the American people ejects the Republican Party in '08--for valid reasons you either don't or won't understand.
As the New York media magnate said upon Reagan's election: "How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him!"Comment Posted By TTT On 24.05.2008 @ 10:51
Tim in #12 basically hit it exactly on the head, except for one detail: I don't believe Rick is "dishonest," as I said I haven't been able to figure out what it is about "people like Obama" that strikes him as a foreign language, but I would not call him a liar for it.
Obama is our best chance of erasing the Bush Abomination and its systemic damage and dishonor upon our country. Everyone ever appointed to any position by Bush must be purged. Executive orders that enshrined torture and environmental neglect must be overturned. No-bid contracts to mercenaries, gang-raping thugs, and assorted apocalypse-nut plunderers ("What do you get if you turn Blackwater brown? Hezbollah") must all be revoked.
And how did all that stuff come about in the first place?
Why, because of the crazy, gullible, lemming-like personality cult around the dauphin George W. Bush, a pampered shirker of a manchild who last-named his way through life but was forgiven for his failings at every turn because he said "Jesus" loud enough. Some 20% of Americans still actually LIKE Bush. THAT is the crazy, dangerous, would-vote-for-Hitler psychotic mob to complain about. Just one thousand of those people--hell, just FIFTY of those people--are more horrifying in their very existence than any number of Obama supporters at any number of rallies.Comment Posted By TTT On 20.05.2008 @ 09:08
And if Obama had few supporters, you'd slam him for that too.
This is a bizarre column, Rick. Many of your Obama columns are bizarre. I understand that you dislike him, but you seem to not understand how other people can like him. You write about him like he's the Pied Piper, with a brainwashing spell over all his cultists, and if only these kids would wake up they'd see how worthless this noncandidate Obama obviously is.
Well, sorry, the time for that to have happened was before Iowa. Americans have GAINED confidence in Obama the more they've seen him, because to many of them he has the values and positions they identify with.
Honestly, your take on him reminds me of the classic tale of a New York media maven who was shocked that Reagan won in 1980: "How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him!"
Nearly all Americans are against the Iraq War, and Obama is the only candidate that speaks to them. He's against the sort of legacy-brat politics that have kept the same two families running our country for nearly 30 years. He doesn't sound like the same old disproven discredited Bush/McCain/Kristol malarkey from 2003. His stances are firmly mainstream, normal, moderate, majority-American positions on the Iraq War, the minimum wage, abortion, global warming, national security, immigration.... you name it, there's a poll that shows most Americans agree with him on it.
Try this: Think of how much you, Rick Moran, dislike George W. Bush and John McCain.
Now realize that most Americans dislike George W. Bush and John McCain much much more than you do.
So, again, where's the mystery?Comment Posted By TTT On 19.05.2008 @ 20:24
Pages (2) :  2