RIH Osama Bin Laden

[Flybrick]

It wasn't a joke. Do you believe industry should be allowed to pollute others' (including public) lands? If so, to what degree?

Start a thread on that. This one's about the death of a terrorist.

[wintergreen48]

t g

You know he is out of office, right?

t.

In my heart of hearts, I do not believe you are this obtuse.

Perhaps paradoxically, in my heart of hearts, I hope that you are this obtuse.

Your original note conflated two completely different situations, as BiT noted: the Bushmen gave out bad information based upon second-hand information (none of them was present at the Tillman or Lynch scenes, and so none of them had first-hand knowledge, instead, they relied upon what they were told, by people who obviously had a motive to sugar-coat what happened); on the other hand, the Obamers gave out bad information apparently just for the heck of it (they actually witnessed most of the events in question, by webcam, so cannot claim ignorance or 'bad information' for most of it).

If you made your comments because you are obtuse, that would mean that you are either stupid (which I do not think you are) or ignorant (which would be consistent with most of your political posts). The alternative would be that you made your comments gratuitously, just to be snarky. Insofar as gratuitous snarkiness would be mean-spirited of you, I prefer to think that you were merely obtuse, which has a certain gentle innocence to it.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

Sports, I tried to agree somewhat with you, but you are not having it. I'll live with that.

. . .

Nice try, Brick. I agree we can't agree on this, not when your position permits the introduction of toxic fluids into groundwater, and you want to lessen our ability to keep them out, not strengthen it.

[silverscreenselect]

t g

You know he is out of office, right?

t.

In my heart of hearts, I do not believe you are this obtuse.

Your original note conflated two completely different situations, as BiT noted: the Bushmen gave out bad information based upon second-hand information (none of them was present at the Tillman or Lynch scenes, and so none of them had first-hand knowledge, instead, they relied upon what they were told, by people who obviously had a motive to sugar-coat what happened); on the other hand, the Obamers gave out bad information apparently just for the heck of it (they actually witnessed most of the events in question, by webcam, so cannot claim ignorance or 'bad information' for most of it).

Regardless of how much the people in the situation room saw, I don't think anyone was expecting them to give a report based on their personal interpretation of what was undoubtedly not the world's best quality video, taken during an actual nighttime combat mission, by people who are not trained military observers. The smart thing to do would have been to combine the actual footage with the debriefings of the various military personnel who were actually involved in the mission to put together the most accurate assessment of what probably went on. Undoubtedly, there would be discrepancies and inconsistencies due to the nature of human recollection and the limitations in the technology. Those inconsistencies could and should have been worked out as best as possible. There was no urgency from a military or intelligence standpoint to go public with the earliest possible account of what went on. The only urgency was to stay "ahead" of the story and manage it (with the resulting PR benefits) as long as they could.

This is the same type of shoot-from-the-hip silliness we got during the Bush Administration. That's the reason the public gave Bush a giant vote of no confidence and sent the Republicans packing in droves in 2008. But they didn't send Bush packing with the idea of replacing him with someone who would screw up just as badly but just sound a little bit smoother in talking about it. I'm tired of Democrats whining about how Bush did this too. You didn't vote for Obama because you wanted four more years of Bush. The country expected better and the country deserves better.

Unforunately what we are seeing more and more is that Bush + Obama = Pierce + Buchanan.

[Flybrick]

Nice try, Brick. I agree we can't agree on this, not when your position permits the introduction of toxic fluids into groundwater, and you want to lessen our ability to keep them out, not strengthen it.

Do you drive a car, use anything plastic (like the keyboard you typed your post from), or manufactured in any way? Do you use electricity? Do you buy your food from a supermarket?

If yes to any of these, much less all of them, then that horse isn't quite as high as you'd present to me.

A reasonable accomodation on the how, how much, and how to limit the pollution and/or its effect can be a conversation, otherwise, you are correct, we had a "nice try."



Say,anyone remember when ol'Dubya was accused of milking 9/11 and Ground Zero for political benefit, yet the non-spiking spiking of the football yesterday in NYC is all good?

[Bob Juch]

Nice try, Brick. I agree we can't agree on this, not when your position permits the introduction of toxic fluids into groundwater, and you want to lessen our ability to keep them out, not strengthen it.

Do you drive a car, use anything plastic (like the keyboard you typed your post from), or manufactured in any way? Do you use electricity? Do you buy your food from a supermarket?

If yes to any of these, much less all of them, then that horse isn't quite as high as you'd present to me.

A reasonable accomodation on the how, how much, and how to limit the pollution and/or its effect can be a conversation, otherwise, you are correct, we had a "nice try."



Say,anyone remember when ol'Dubya was accused of milking 9/11 and Ground Zero for political benefit, yet the non-spiking spiking of the football yesterday in NYC is all good?

You ask me to start a new thread but continue your off-topic discussion here. Uh huh.

[Flybrick]

One person I care to interact with, another I don't.

Where's Waldo?

[franktangredi]

So has anyone changed anybody else's mind yet? Just checking.

[littlebeast13]

So has anyone changed anybody else's mind yet? Just checking.

Before reading this thread, I was firmly in the Less Filling camp. I now am fully behind Tastes Great.....

lb13

[wintergreen48]

So has anyone changed anybody else's mind yet? Just checking.

There would be no fun in that-- if we all agreed, the thread would die and we would have to do something else, like post about WWTBAM or something.

My recollection of this whole thing is that this started out as a 'good news about bad rubbish' thread, and stayed that way for the first page, and only became a political thread on the second page, when Someone Somehow Sent it off-track by throwing in a gratuitous slam at a former President.

[Flybrick]

There would be no fun in that-- if we all agreed, the thread would die and we would have to do something else, like post about WWTBAM or something.

My recollection of this whole thing is that this started out as a 'good news about bad rubbish' thread, and stayed that way for the first page, and only became a political thread on the second page, when Someone Somehow Sent it off-track by throwing in a gratuitous slam at a former President.

But's ok to bust on GWB. Didn't you get the memo?

One cannot do the same to the current president. That's inciting to violence, blind partisanship, and ruinous to the environment.

Despite usually just noting the buffoonery being exhibited by the current Administration. Editorial comments really aren't needed, just a statement of the facts.

Unless, of course, the telling of those facts by senior Administration officials has to be changed.

Daily.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

[Bob Juch]

[SportsFan68]

Nice try, Brick. I agree we can't agree on this, not when your position permits the introduction of toxic fluids into groundwater, and you want to lessen our ability to keep them out, not strengthen it.

Do you drive a car, use anything plastic (like the keyboard you typed your post from), or manufactured in any way? Do you use electricity? Do you buy your food from a supermarket?

If yes to any of these, much less all of them, then that horse isn't quite as high as you'd present to me.

A reasonable accomodation on the how, how much, and how to limit the pollution and/or its effect can be a conversation, otherwise, you are correct, we had a "nice try."



Say,anyone remember when ol'Dubya was accused of milking 9/11 and Ground Zero for political benefit, yet the non-spiking spiking of the football yesterday in NYC is all good?

Nice try again, Brick. Here's your statement, emphasis added:

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

As a conservative, what you've actually done with your deregulation crazed philosophy is put your imprimatur on many of the worst environmental abuses in history, including exempting fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. You have left profit-is-everything people alone to do what they want, which, in the fracking example, is put poisons into groundwater if it will increase their bottom line. You haven't left me alone at all; you've made sure that lots of places around here with natural gas nearby can't trust their wells anymore, and a couple of those places have very dear friends of mine living on them.

Accuse me of high-horsedness all you want, but I have said (and contacted my representatives about it, and tried to get resolutions passed locally) that ending the fracking exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is the right thing to do because of its horrific consequences both short and long term. Your conservative buddies have turned a deaf ear.

In your simpler terms: how: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
how much: all of them
how to limit the pollution: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
and/or its effect: if the toxins aren't in the fluids, they won't pollute the groundwater or cause other harmful contact above ground.

There is no conversation. You and your conservative buddies, who have a majority in the House at the moment, insist that fracking is safe despite medical evidence and dozens of cases of severe illness to the contrary, and they refuse to regulate it.

[STUXNET]

I'm like an evil genie sometimes

[Beebs52]

Nice try, Brick. I agree we can't agree on this, not when your position permits the introduction of toxic fluids into groundwater, and you want to lessen our ability to keep them out, not strengthen it.

Do you drive a car, use anything plastic (like the keyboard you typed your post from), or manufactured in any way? Do you use electricity? Do you buy your food from a supermarket?

If yes to any of these, much less all of them, then that horse isn't quite as high as you'd present to me.

A reasonable accomodation on the how, how much, and how to limit the pollution and/or its effect can be a conversation, otherwise, you are correct, we had a "nice try."



Say,anyone remember when ol'Dubya was accused of milking 9/11 and Ground Zero for political benefit, yet the non-spiking spiking of the football yesterday in NYC is all good?

Nice try again, Brick. Here's your statement, emphasis added:

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

As a conservative, what you've actually done with your deregulation crazed philosophy is put your imprimatur on many of the worst environmental abuses in history, including exempting fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. You have left profit-is-everything people alone to do what they want, which, in the fracking example, is put poisons into groundwater if it will increase their bottom line. You haven't left me alone at all; you've made sure that lots of places around here with natural gas nearby can't trust their wells anymore, and a couple of those places have very dear friends of mine living on them.

Accuse me of high-horsedness all you want, but I have said (and contacted my representatives about it, and tried to get resolutions passed locally) that ending the fracking exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is the right thing to do because of its horrific consequences both short and long term. Your conservative buddies have turned a deaf ear.

In your simpler terms: how: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
how much: all of them
how to limit the pollution: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
and/or its effect: if the toxins aren't in the fluids, they won't pollute the groundwater or cause other harmful contact above ground.

There is no conversation. You and your conservative buddies, who have a majority in the House at the moment, insist that fracking is safe despite medical evidence and dozens of cases of severe illness to the contrary, and they refuse to regulate it.

This is making the "conservative" "liberal" debate another one issue debate. I agree with you. Doesn't seem like reasonable people would want to perpetrate this. I don't know the local politics. We're dealing with our own downstream possibility of fouling our water. But, it's a coalition of what you'd call "right" folks and "left" folks. We all know deals are made with the devil.And that sucks. We're locally trying to get things stopped. However, I really don't think Flybrick is advocating pollution. You simply cannot attribute whatever nasty stuff goes on in certain cases to all who's slants might be "righter" than yours. Not right, as in correct, obviously.

There are, indeed, instances, of foolish regulations, not necessarily environmentally focused, wherein people have gone batshit crazy towards the other side.

[Queen Fantine VIII]

Fair warning, people, the next phase involves Hello Kitty and lots of sparkles......

[Flybrick]

[
But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

As a conservative, what you've actually done with your deregulation crazed philosophy is put your imprimatur on many of the worst environmental abuses in history, including exempting fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. You have left profit-is-everything people alone to do what they want, which, in the fracking example, is put poisons into groundwater if it will increase their bottom line. You haven't left me alone at all; you've made sure that lots of places around here with natural gas nearby can't trust their wells anymore, and a couple of those places have very dear friends of mine living on them.

Accuse me of high-horsedness all you want, but I have said (and contacted my representatives about it, and tried to get resolutions passed locally) that ending the fracking exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is the right thing to do because of its horrific consequences both short and long term. Your conservative buddies have turned a deaf ear.

In your simpler terms: how: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
how much: all of them
how to limit the pollution: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
and/or its effect: if the toxins aren't in the fluids, they won't pollute the groundwater or cause other harmful contact above ground.

There is no conversation. You and your conservative buddies, who have a majority in the House at the moment, insist that fracking is safe despite medical evidence and dozens of cases of severe illness to the contrary, and they refuse to regulate it.

Wow, you are fired up about this.

1. Good for you in getting involved with your congressman regarding an issue you obviously care deeply about.

2. My point, which you have glommed on to like a liberal with a tax raise (note that's an analogy, not calling you a liberal), is geared towards personal action and freedom. I will readily admit that when I wrote it and posted on an internet bored, that I did not consider every single instance or conceivable way that my words could be applied.

3. I know absolutely nothing about "fracturing" or the pollution/industry which has you so incensed. I cannot believe that you would think that I (for whom I speak only, not my "conservative friends" as though we all meet in the oak-panelled drawing room with cigars and brandy and think of ways to destroy the world. Would make a good Bond movie plot though...)

4. Guess we won't be having iced benzine cocktails anytime soon.

I do NOT want the kitty and sparkles treatment. I've learned my lesson, but I'd still do away with the EPA. It is currently way out of control with administrative law superseding those of the Congress. I'm agin that.

[Beebs52]

Fair warning, people, the next phase involves Hello Kitty and lots of sparkles......

She looks terroristic. Just saying. But, beautifully terroristic.

[SportsFan68]

[
But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

As a conservative, what you've actually done with your deregulation crazed philosophy is put your imprimatur on many of the worst environmental abuses in history, including exempting fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. You have left profit-is-everything people alone to do what they want, which, in the fracking example, is put poisons into groundwater if it will increase their bottom line. You haven't left me alone at all; you've made sure that lots of places around here with natural gas nearby can't trust their wells anymore, and a couple of those places have very dear friends of mine living on them.

Accuse me of high-horsedness all you want, but I have said (and contacted my representatives about it, and tried to get resolutions passed locally) that ending the fracking exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is the right thing to do because of its horrific consequences both short and long term. Your conservative buddies have turned a deaf ear.

In your simpler terms: how: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
how much: all of them
how to limit the pollution: stop putting toxins in fracking fluids
and/or its effect: if the toxins aren't in the fluids, they won't pollute the groundwater or cause other harmful contact above ground.

There is no conversation. You and your conservative buddies, who have a majority in the House at the moment, insist that fracking is safe despite medical evidence and dozens of cases of severe illness to the contrary, and they refuse to regulate it.

Wow, you are fired up about this.

1. Good for you in getting involved with your congressman regarding an issue you obviously care deeply about.

2. My point, which you have glommed on to like a liberal with a tax raise (note that's an analogy, not calling you a liberal), is geared towards personal action and freedom. I will readily admit that when I wrote it and posted on an internet bored, that I did not consider every single instance or conceivable way that my words could be applied.

3. I know absolutely nothing about "fracturing" or the pollution/industry which has you so incensed. I cannot believe that you would think that I (for whom I speak only, not my "conservative friends" as though we all meet in the oak-panelled drawing room with cigars and brandy and think of ways to destroy the world. Would make a good Bond movie plot though...)

4. Guess we won't be having iced benzine cocktails anytime soon.

I do NOT want the kitty and sparkles treatment. I've learned my lesson, but I'd still do away with the EPA. It is currently way out of control with administrative law superseding those of the Congress. I'm agin that.

I don't think that you hang out in oak-paneled rooms and think up ways to destroy the world, Brick. I don't think you're pro-pollution.

Here's what I think: I think that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for all good people to do nothing. You probably think I'm overstating it, but once groundwater is polluted, it stays polluted, and I believe that polluting the groundwater of our children and grandchildren is evil. On that note, I'm willing to agree to disagree and move on.

[silverscreenselect]

It is currently way out of control with administrative law superseding those of the Congress. I'm agin that.

If the EPA has adopted regulations that contravene federal law, those regulations can be challenged in court. If, in general, they are regulating in a manner that Congress disapproves, Congress can change the enabling legislation that allows them to operate.

Frankly, after the BP oil spill, I'd love to see the Republicans introduce legislation to abolish the EPA and see how that flies with the American public. About the same as their efforts to provide Obamacare for the elderly in the name of "Medicare reform" are doing, I'd venture.

[Flybrick]

Stay classy, Cleveland...




http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-grayson ... or-4-days/

No doubt the lefties among us will be along to say this is outrageous.

Right?

[ShamelessWeasel]

Stay classy, Cleveland...




http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-grayson ... or-4-days/

No doubt the lefties among us will be along to say this is outrageous.

Right?

I will. I really do not like Ed Schultz or Alan Grayson. Both say stupid things altogether too often. There is no need for any "jokes" about this

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

[Bob78164]

All I see is the word "Image." It looks like you need permissions to view that image. --Bob