Madame Speaker's real agenda?

[harpman1]

We did.
7 years of domestic safety.
Thank you Pres. Bush.

[bolverk]

Aug 22, 2008 12:51:44 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Aug 22, 2008 10:53:33 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

The actual war was over with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Everything else was just clean up.

And what was that about insurgents? I thought the tagline was: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

How in the world did you get 11 exalts? Especially with posts like that. Are you really that naive to believe that insurgents were not going to try and disrupt the good things we were trying to accomplish in Iraq? Iran hates Iraq, and has for years. They saw this as an opportunity, and we had to make sure that opportunity was not taken advantage of.

You know, I have always said you support genocide. Anyone who wanted to pull out of Iraq before we helped them secure their country after defeating Saddam was supporting genocide, even if they did not know it. You have no heart or compassion for people unless they sneak over our borders.

[saunterelle]

We did.
7 years of domestic safety.
Thank you Pres. Bush.

Think I'll go puke now.

Aug 22, 2008 13:57:27 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

Aug 22, 2008 12:51:44 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

And what was that about insurgents? I thought the tagline was: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

How in the world did you get 11 exalts? Especially with posts like that. Are you really that naive to believe that insurgents were not going to try and disrupt the good things we were trying to accomplish in Iraq? Iran hates Iraq, and has for years. They saw this as an opportunity, and we had to make sure that opportunity was not taken advantage of.

You know, I have always said you support genocide. Anyone who wanted to pull out of Iraq before we helped them secure their country after defeating Saddam was supporting genocide, even if they did not know it. You have no heart or compassion for people unless they sneak over our borders.

Saying I support genocide is like saying John McCain wants to secure our border, it's simply not true. We killed thousands of Iraqi civilians with our "shock and awe" approach. Then we went in to find the WMDs and low and behold, we were wrong! Then we stayed to "rebuild" but we didn't protect the Iraqi people so the terrorists we attracted to Iraq continue to blow up thousands more innocent civilians. But we stay so that Bush can "win the war." Yeah right.

[bolverk]

Aug 22, 2008 14:12:28 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

We did.
7 years of domestic safety.
Thank you Pres. Bush.

Think I'll go puke now.

Aug 22, 2008 13:57:27 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

How in the world did you get 11 exalts? Especially with posts like that. Are you really that naive to believe that insurgents were not going to try and disrupt the good things we were trying to accomplish in Iraq? Iran hates Iraq, and has for years. They saw this as an opportunity, and we had to make sure that opportunity was not taken advantage of.

You know, I have always said you support genocide. Anyone who wanted to pull out of Iraq before we helped them secure their country after defeating Saddam was supporting genocide, even if they did not know it. You have no heart or compassion for people unless they sneak over our borders.

Saying I support genocide is like saying John McCain wants to secure our border, it's simply not true. We killed thousands of Iraqi civilians with our "shock and awe" approach. Then we went in to find the WMDs and low and behold, we were wrong! Then we stayed to "rebuild" but we didn't protect the Iraqi people so the terrorists we attracted to Iraq continue to blow up thousands more innocent civilians. But we stay so that Bush can "win the war." Yeah right.

I smote you, and I would again if I could. How dare you say John McCain does not want our borders secure. Who are you, a mind reader? I some how doubt that. You are, however, a vitriolic individual when it comes to the war in Iraq.

As far as supporting genocide, what do you think would have happened had we pulled out of Iraq? Are you really so naive? Do you think that Iran would have come over the border with open arms filled with flowers for their newly freed enemies? Have you not paid any attention to what has been going on over there since the time of Jimmy Carter?

You may not have supported the war, but Congress did declare it, with a lot of votes from both sides of the isle. It was a bipartisan decision. And don't pretend for one second that Bush fooled anyone. That is just stupid, and shows a complete lack of intelligence on the part of anyone who claims that.

Yep, you can buy into all that bullshit that the left spews, everyday. But, you are protected in your vaunted little castle called America. I have been in places where conflict rages today.

The simple fact is, Saddam needed to be removed, to say it was a mistake to remove him supports genocide. The simple fact is we removed him, and that made us responsible for securing the borders of Iraq. The simple fact is, there were already terrorists in Iraq, and we are not responsible for their actions. The simple fact is, people die in war, which is why it is so important to rebuild after it happens.

You may wish to live your life with your blinders securely in place, but I do not. You buy the simple minded propaganda being spewed by the peace at any cost crowd, who would gladly watch you marched into a death camp if it meant we did not go to war, I do not buy it. You may ignore that sometimes freedom comes with a high price, but I understand what it took to get freedom for this country, and Iraq. You dishonor those sacrifices, I do not.

Please, go puke. I hope you get it all over yourself.

[jgaffney]

Newt Gimgrich gives us this insight on the Democrat energy policy:

The last few days have seen left wing anti-energy Democrats scrambling to find a survivable position.

When we first launched the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition drive at American Solutions, left wing anti-energy Democrats were deeply and decisively opposed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that she was "saving the planet" by stopping drilling.

Senator Obama made fun of drilling and announced that inflating your tires would increase energy availability as much as drilling.

Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO), a hard line environmental extremist and anti-energy Democrat (and the author in the House of the ban on developing oil shale, a resource proven to have three times more oil than Saudi Arabia), was confidently opposed to drilling and comfortably ahead of Republican former Congressman Bob Schaffer for the Colorado Senate seat.

Then the American people began to sign the petition.

Speaker Pelosi Made a Big Mistake When She Cut Off the Debate on Drilling.

Senator John McCain announced that he recognizes the reality of the energy crisis and now favors offshore drilling (although he still opposes developing ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). McCain began saying "Drill More, Drill Here, Pay Less" at town hall meetings. His campaign ran a commercial about drilling. He used the phrase in a weekly radio address. Last Saturday night at Saddleback Church he told Pastor Rick Warren that agreeing to offshore drilling was the biggest change in public policy in his career.

Speaker Pelosi made a big mistake when she abruptly cut off Congressional debate and adjourned early on Friday, August 1st. The enraged House Republicans began staging a speak-in, which is still underway as I write. They clearly felt they were representing the American people, and their rights as elected representatives were being trampled on by a dictatorial Pelosi machine. The result has been two weeks of talk radio and other news, which would probably not have happened without Pelosi's arrogance and mistakes. You can view the Newt.org blog's coverage here.

And as Republican Leader John Boehner led the effort to have a real debate with the country about developing more American energy now, people kept coming to American Solutions to sign our Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition. Today there are nearly 1,500,000 signatures, and more sign up every day.

The result of all this effort has been a continued increase in support for drilling. Indeed the American people want a comprehensive energy plan. Pollster Dave Winston reports that 81% favor a Manhattan Project style all-out effort to produce new energy systems.

Faced with this tidal wave of popular support, it quickly became apparent that the anti-energy Democrats were holding a losing hand.

Now left wing anti-energy Democrats are trying to maneuver to a new position:

They want to pretend to be for drilling just enough to win the election but not do anything to actually produce more oil and gas.

Senator Obama was the first to break. He began saying maybe he could accept some drilling in a comprehensive energy bill which would also include a lot of other things. He was sort of for nuclear power as long as it was not any time soon. He was for studying this and analyzing that.

Then Congressman Mark Udall announced that he was for a little bit of drilling in a few places as long as it was in a bill with a big tax increase.

Finally, on Saturday, in their weekly radio address, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the Democrats would have drilling in a new energy bill.

But when you read beyond the headline of Speaker Pelosi's statement and get to the details, it is clear she is trying to maneuver to block the Republicans from having a straight up or down vote on a powerful energy bill.

Since the original anti-energy Democratic strategy of "no, no, no" has collapsed they have moved to a new strategy of "deceive, deceive, deceive."

Their goal is to sound pro-energy just long enough to avoid defeat in the November elections while making sure that any legislation is hopelessly weak and has tax increases Republicans will oppose.

Forcing the Anti-Energy Democrats to Tell the Truth
There is an upcoming series of very simple tests for the sincerity of the anti-energy Democrats.

1. Will they write a platform plank at their national convention in Denver that calls for more drilling and for more American energy?

2. Will they allow a fair rule so House Republicans and pro-energy Democrats can bring up a comprehensive energy bill that would really work?

3. Will they allow the moratorium on drilling to expire on October 1?

4. Will they allow the moratorium on developing shale oil (our largest reserves proven to have three times the oil of Saudi Arabia—I keep repeating this because it is so unbelievable that we have been sending money overseas when we have this much oil in the Rocky Mountains) ?

5. Are they willing to pass a pro-energy bill with no tax increase so it can have bipartisan support and be signed into law?

6. Will they agree to keep Congress in session until a serious energy bill is signed by the President?

If the anti-energy Democrats led by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would agree to these six steps then they would have really switched their position and the country would really be on the way to solving its current energy problems.

Like my earlier posts, I think Pelosi and Reid are hoping to stall the issue long enough to get a reading on who the next president will be. Talk about your political football! A vote for Obama is a vote for $5.00 a gallon gasoline!

[Mink]

Gaffney: "Like my earlier posts, I think Pelosi and Reid are hoping to stall the issue long enough to get a reading on who the next president will be. Talk about your political football! A vote for Obama is a vote for $5.00 a gallon gasoline!"
_____________________________________________

Too late, under bush's watch/policies, we already experienced $5. a gal for gasoline, hence the urgency by Republicans in Congress to force the blame on Dems. Sorry, we (the country)already noticed.

[jgaffney]

Aug 22, 2008 20:21:50 GMT -5 Mink said:

Too late, under bush's watch/policies, we already experienced $5. a gal for gasoline, hence the urgency by Republicans in Congress to force the blame on Dems. Sorry, we (the country)already noticed.

Your revisionist history won't cut it here, Mink. Maybe you should go back and review the debates over the several energy bills that were proposed in the Republican congresses and explain to all of us how that has led to $5 a gallon gas. As I recall, the current price of gas is caused by a shortage of supply and every energy bill proposed by the Republican congresses would have increased supply. How does that compare with your view?

[Mink]

The Republican solution is to drill. Ok, fine.... however, they have allotted mileage of land they aren't using to drill. Instead, they want more land even though they haven't used what they already have. Tell me how that is helping with oil pricing?

Please explain the encouragement for buying Hummers by the conservatives post 9/11. How did that fit into this shortage? Why did our own governor reduce his own supply of Hummers after he was elected ? Why, because they are gas guzzlers. Why did the bush administration encourage the country to spend money like nothing happened post 9/11? (the excuse was to "pretend" that the terrorists actions didn't faze us)......wow, now we are in an energy crisis and the Republicans are pointing fingers.

*note: I didn't include the secret energy meeting Dick C. had with Enron prior to the California energy crisis years ago with those infamous "rolling black outs"

But, let's pretend it is Pelosi's fault for our current dilemma....bad girl!

[subdjoe]

Mink, that has been addressed again and again. Some of the parcels can be explored sismically and be shown to not have oil there. Then there is the process of getting the permits to do the test drilling, then getting the gear together to do it. Take a few geology classes. And, you missed the other part of the Republican solution - develope other sources, explore new technology, work on efficency of existing technology. So, do your homework, quit spreading lies for the DNC.

Why did bush encourage us to get on with life? Gee, Mink, maybe to help restore confidence? Maybe to show that, as horriffic as those events were, America was still a strong, vibrant country? Maybe to keep the economy from completely tanking? If you recall, there was just a bit of a disruption for a while, air travel was way down, the tourist trade became almost non existant for a while, and everything associated with those took a dive, and, like ripples on a pond that spread through the whole economy. Pretty darned simple and effective, if you ask me.

and, as you are so fond of pointing out, then was then, this is now. Pelosi has the watch in the House, she gets the blame.

[Mink]

Subdjoe, the Republicans have no money allocated in research for energy, unless I missed something, so please show me. All I am hearing is drill, drill and more drilling. The arctic ice is melting and they still want to drill. They argue with only a percentage of scientific fact/s regarding global warming so they can drill. Seafood will be history with that mindset, not to mention polar bears who are currently drowning in some instances. I am not spreading lies for anyone, but observing current predicaments.

The so-called "confidence" you claim bush attempted to instill in the country lead to an economic downfall.......end of story. If, the horrific event was so bad, why di he keep reading "my pet goat"? Think about it, you are a smart man. It just doesn't make horse sense.

The disruption in air travel or any travel for that matter, post 9/11 has been proffitable for some or downright devastating for most, business-wise. I don't see this as simple or effective unless one is in the oil business.

Bad girl Pelosi, for allowing our economy to get so bad, people without healthcare, schools aren't producing lucid ,enunciating pupils, accountability for our hard earned tax-paying pennies,
veterans (forget it), senior (who asked you), oh yeah and gracias for our welcomed workers who take jobs we don't want......etc!
President Pelosi, for shame!

[subdjoe]

Um, those tax breaks for oil that you complain about help defray the cost of the research.
And, why should the govt. pay directly for research when private industry can do it so much better? If all you hear is "drill, drill and more drilling" maybe you need to quit listening to NPR and actually READ what the real proposals are.

Yes, arctic ice is melting. It has been for 12,000 years or so. Should keep melting for another 20,000 or 30,000. Natural process. You might want to check some sources other than algoree and NPR for info about the interglacial period we are in. don't rely on their junk science and rigged 'studies." They developed the computer models to support their thesis, not to test it. Oh, and those polar bears, four of them I think, had nothing to do with the interglacial warming.

That econonomic downfall was a result of both the disruption of the economy due to the attacks and the fall out of the dot com bubble bursting (under Clinton if you will recall).
Oh, nice. He gets word of what at first seems to be an accident, no other information, and he is supposed to jump up and "do something!" Like what? Give a press conference where ass he can say is "An aircraft hit a building, we don;t know how it happened. We will give you more information as it becomes available."? Given the information that he had at that time, what would YOU have done? Rememer, all you know is that a plane hit a building. One plane, one building. What do you jump up and do? The proper answer is to wait for more information. He did EXACTLY the right thing at that time. When it was know that it was not a tragic accident, but a ruthless, planned attack, he again did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do, he listened to the Secret Service and got his ass into the air with a fighter escort. Then he read and listened to the reports of what was known. You whine that he is stupid, then you whine when he does what a thoughtful person would do. Make up your mind.

Again, I'm not a big supporter of Bush, but I won't stand by silently when someone trys to lynch him.

[The Big Dog]

Aug 22, 2008 23:28:13 GMT -5 Mink said:

The arctic ice is melting and they still want to drill.

Bought into the line of the crazies without fact checking again, eh Mink? Guess you must have seen an article by AP's "science writer", or maybe some other similar articles, that appearred back in June which were furthering that bit of nysteria. Were you aware that these "scientific facts" were very quickly proven to be utter nonsense?

The sea ice over the Arctic Ocean advances and retreats every year. This past winter actually had record ice coverage reported, in both thickness and advance. There is also volcanic activity under the Arctic Ocean which has an effect on water temperature and by derivation on ice formation.

A coupld of articles posted at The American Thinker might help you get a better picture of what really goes on with Arctic Sea ice.

This article puts the bunk, in part to the hysteriacs....

Wait a minute: "ice is on course to disappear"..."may well have melted away by summer". Oh I get it, the ice is still there. That title was a little misleading. As we read on there are more examples of backtracking:

"Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50"[...]

"I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze." [...]

"We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," [...]

Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends on what happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt away at the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.


Let's get back to the science:

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.


So, if it is symbolically hugely important does that mean realistically it is not that important?

Then there is this article which provides photographic evidence that the "consensus" of science that "all debate is over" on anthropogenic global warming is pure bunk.