Why would you call people who just want a nice clean commentary on a board...sm

• geez, sally, wash your fingers out with soap.....sm - ms
  • Bully pack and gangs of pubs (GOP) - Letting ignorance and issues deficits shine. sm
    • Why would you call people who just want a nice clean commentary on a board...sm - ms
      • You only complain about 'bad language' if it's aimed at - YOU. Go read the bible and calm down.
      • Whiners are of no interest. Got more - important issues to address than this trivia. nm
        • Then why are you whining...er...posting, if you have more important things to do....nm - nm
          • Because I find it offensive - and hypocritical when....
      • Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic... - sam
        • [Sigh].... there's that LAST WORD obsession, again - !!
  • And that is my God-given right! - sally
    • Cut the language out. (sm) - Moderator
    • geez sally, is it also your god given right...sm - ms
      • really of little or no consequence - sally
        • you aren't reasoning out issues, you are being downright rude, crude, and nasty. nm - MT and worn out
      • The Moderator has an excellent idea. - Zville MT
    • Sally, you actually make me laugh, thanks. - Are you a wind-up doll? nm
      • yes, she is programmed currently - to "psychobabble" nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I believe the whole thread containing this post should be deleted, since they are all along the same lines and contain personal attacks against people who don't agree with them. Fair is fair, right?

****

You insufferable elitist snob. sm

Posted By: MT2 on 2005-06-28,
In Reply to: Do you ever say anything intelligent? - MTME

I am sure they have had to widen the doorways in your house to get your head through it.  Get over yourself.  

All I saw were you guys *applause applause*-ing each other and the usual ragging on all liberals.  Then I saw ONE courageous soul who attempted to debate with you, followed by the usual and customary *stay off the board* warnings to the poster.

So it seems you guys consider nice debate as ganging up and attacking posters who disagree with you.

Maybe that's the problem here.  We view nice debate in two different ways.

We view it as being nice to other posters and not personally attacking those who disagree with us.  We don't claim to know what they are thinking and feeling in their minds and hearts, and we find those who insist on being nasty to others very distasteful and crude.  We don't LIKE to act the way that you neocons act.  We'd rather be friendly and civilized. That's why you're not welcome here.  It's not because of what you believe.  It's because you are unable to act like decent human beings, and you don't know how to treat other people.

"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

have been directly affected by outsourcing.  I would hope a level of insight into the future of our country could be gained by that experience.  If we allow the car companies to go down, sending all car manufacturing overseas, it will not return. All the hardworking people who work in support capacities such as providing materials for automobiles will be affected.  When a patient arrives in extremis in the emergency room, you don't lecture them on eating 8 vegetables and fruits a day.  You stabilize them and THEN work on their future health.

They're back, and they're back with a vengeance.  Their pitiful little lives must be going very badly for them, poor babies.  Maybe winter has arrived, and they realize they can't afford to heat their homes, and they're upset and angry.  Or maybe they're just basically hateful, vengeful people who have to evict all the old built-up hatred in their tiny hearts to make room for new anger and hatred to reside.

Either way, they just can't seem to leave us alone.  I suggest we ignore every single post -- don't even read it and don't respond to it.

There are some people for whom reason is beyond reach, and all we do is feed their hatred.

I say we ignore them until their current hate *wave* passes.

just slam anyone with a different point of view.  It is very tiresome, and you really are not even saying anything at this point...just you hate Obama (yes we do get it) and love John McCain. 

(This is weird, like I feel I am back in school or something, like kids do - no middle ground, no high road, just might is right and the meaner and nastier the better). 

You may have the board to yourselves - just remember, do not let anyone in who has any opinions other than yours. 

Your intolerance is ugly. 

I never would have started watching it. I didn't even know I could get Fox on my TV. During the political campaign everyone complained about "Faux News", so I got curious, found it on my TV, and started watching.

Up until then, I was watching MSNBC including Chris Matthews and other opinionated commentators (who is going to lecture 5 miles from here today), ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. 

Found out it doesn't matter if you watch the big 3 or the so-called MSNBC. They all had a sprinkling of news if it was broadcast at all, while Fox was usually FIRST with the news...and I mean real news, not just political news..They had exclusive reports and interviews with both sides, whereas the big 3 had 1-sided interviews.

Also, during the campaign, I was curious about O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, and others. Started watching them to see what they were all about. Turns out I LIKE Hannity and Cavuto, but the one I really like is Bret Baier (sp).

Tried to watch Olberman and Matthews. Bitter, bitter guys and hardly truthful.

I still watch the big 3, but rely on Fox for truth and fairness. Say what you want, but view them with an open mind and you will be surprised.

Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised.  Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54

Why?

How the Wikipedia entry of Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin was mysteriously scrubbed clean in the hours before John McCain revealed his running mate

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.

My, must be nice. Trying to pass a bill for clean energy and who is going to profit from this? T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels. Nancy and her husband bought #50K-$100K worth of stock in May 2007. No wonder she's pushing it. It means a fortune for her.

Another site states her husband bought the shares alone, but she lives in CA where it's share and share alike.

http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/the-pelosi-pickens-profit-plan-with-clean-energy-fuels-clne/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225