The first I ever heard of her, she was going to overhaul the US medical system. Which seemed a bad idea at the time, especially considering that she was not an elected official. Then when you saw what she came up with, it was unbelievable how bad it was.
Which insurance company do you work for? Because only an employee of that industry could possibly see saving Americans trillions of dollars while providing better care as a bad thing.
He was plenty conservative for conservatives when they backed him to the hilt on both of his elections, on his economic and social policies, and of course the Global War on Terrah. But now that conservatism has led this country into the worst clusterfuck in 80 years, "he's no longer conservative".
Pushing his radical agenda, which doesn't even reflect genuine conservative values
Of course it does. Conservatives are trying to excuse the complete failure of conservatism by blaming it's failures on Bush, rather than realizing that the movement itself is a failure. As Digby pointed out, conservatives are people in the good graces of other conservatives. When they aren't, they're liberal.
"holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton."
With one giant difference. There should have been Clinton Republicans the same way there were Reagan Democrats. The man embraced GOP positions from trade to law enforcement to deregulation to balancing the budget to welfare reform. But no, righties made the decision to hate Clinton's guts because he beat their candidate, and because there is a very strong correlation between being a rightie and being a real asshole.
Whereas with Bush, if you don't hate him, there's something wrong with you no matter what your political affiliation is. The laziness. The incompetence. The cronyism. The fascism. The series of indefensible fuckups that have led to the deaths of over 10,000 Americans.
With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter.
Carter's problem wasn't a lack of competence, it was a lack of charisma and a string of bad luck.
But here's a way to verify: Click on the Republican topic and see the number of positive Republican stories. Then click on the Democrat topic and see the number of positive Democrat stories.
Well, lets see: getting over 10,000 Americans killed, blowing the budget, creating a new Gilded Age, shredding the Constitution and demonizing anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with you will put a bit of a damper in the number of positive stories about you.
Not only are they not remotely comparable, they aren't even on the same planet. Remember McCain getting hit with the "illegitimate black child" smear back in 2000 and shut your big yapper.
As a retired Captain (USAF), I took great offense at Al Gore's election-2000 team explicitly trying to get them to throw out the absentee votes of GIs stationed overseas.
I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.
Love him or hate him, Rove is a brilliant and cunning political strategist.
Rove isn't brilliant, Rove is a one hit wonder: hard right, all the time, and demonize your opponent by any means necessary. While that one hit was good for several elections, he has doomed the GOP to minority status for at least a couple decades, and that's with a good chunk of the Democrats remaining spineless incompetent cowards.
For example, Rumsfeld wasn't tossed out until after the 2006 election. If he had been fired a few months earlier, the Republicans would have had a better chance of holding onto the Senate. If he had forced out Cheney and the other neocons, hung Abramoff and Foley out to dry, and sought a genuinely new Iraq policy, they might have held on to the House as well.
What are you trying to do, one up the parent on stupidity? If complimenting an individual or group is an insult to the rest by omission, then we could never praise or reward anyone.
You, like Al Gore, are entitled to your own opinion. But you, like Al Gore, are not entitled to your own set of facts. Gore uses facts. You rely on disingenuous asshatery. Oh, and RealClimate is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to those bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
Antarctic ice is increasing
Because warmer air carries more moisture. The ice isn't increasing because the air is getting cooler, it's getting thicker because there is more precipitation. Which you would of course know if you'd read the link, but too many facts in one day and your head might explode.
and all the ice cores there show a current cooling trend
because the only places on the earth with significant recent warming are in Alaska, Canada and Russia
Bullshit. In Montana, the state next to mine, they've had more 100 degree days since 2000 than they did in the entire previous century.
Averaging all the earth's temperatures together to find a warming trend and then blaming that trend for occurrences taking place where it's not warming is either grossly ignorant or grossly deceitful.
Bullshit. Taking an average disguises the true impact of climate change, which is having the greatest impact at the polls.
Okay... then you global warming fundamentalists are the new Spanish Inquisition. And you should all move to the himalayas so you can escape the impending global flood.
If we are wrong, some oil companies might not rake in 10 billion next quarter. If we are wrong, consumers will save money through reduced energy use. If you are wrong, there will be hundreds of millions of refugees across the planet, coastal cities will be completely flooded, thousands of species will become extinct and farmland will turn into swamp or desert. I'll make do with a reduced BP Amoco stock price and a reduced energy bill at the end of the month, and you can buy a canoe and try not to drown. Deal?
Oil wells in the U.S. are incredibly non-productive. People always think of oil wells as the geysers they see in movies and cartoons (or Kuwait during the first Gulf War). The reality in the U.S. is that two-thirds of them produce fewer than 5 barrels of oil a day
Because they aren't run to capacity. If wells in the U.S. really only produced an average of 5 barrels a day, the oil industry wouldn't bother to drill here. No, they just tap the most profitable wells first and leave the rest for later or only run them to fill contractual obligations. For example, I know some ranchers who signed deals to have at least X number of barrels pumped from their property. The oil company comes in, gets the X number of barrels, and then shuts off the well until the next time they come.
The problem with your conspiracy theory is that it involves a developing technology which the oil companies are perfectly suited to take advantage of (that was rude of you to selectively edit this out when you quoted me).
And you should have thought about where they financial interest lies. Why bother with geothermal energy, which needs development and has a much higher start up cost than an oil well, when oil has been obscenely profitable for them?
Transportation energy sources have several requirements to which gasoline is well suited. Cost, high energy density (both volumetric and weight), ease and speed of distribution (refueling or recharging), and safety are some that come to mind.
Electric power will take care of the vast majority of our transportation needs: freight trains can run on electricity, and GM's 17 year old EV1 would have taken care of most commuting needs. No, electric power doesn't solve everything, but it could reduce our current oil consumption to a trickle.
Except that the primary danger from oil tankers and pipelines is that they will rupture. No such risk of that with geothermal energy, but don't let an inconvenient truth get in the way of your environmentalist bashing.
1) If you think that CO2 is causing it to flood in South Asia, you are thinking more from superstition than science. 2) Net antarctic ice is accumulating, not melting. 3) If you think CO2 is making hurricanes larger or track towards major cities, you have a screw loose.
You could have saved your time if you'd just written: bullshit, bullshit and bullshit, since it's all the same anyway. No, you can't point to any one storm and say it happened because of global warming. But warmer temperatures absolutely do worsen tropical storms, and the earth has been warming. And RealClimate shot down the "thickening Antarctic ice" canard three years ago.
You global warming deniers are the new flat earthers. But at least flat earthers didn't screw over the rest of the planet. If you are also so confident it isn't happening, move to a nice coastal area in Malaysia and stay there.
Shredding the Constitution is not popular. The incompetent, lying Alberto Gonzalez is not popular. The president is not popular. The media is not popular. If the media and Democrats did their jobs, they would point out the fact that when the Administration claims that FISA needs to be changed to protect America, the Administration is lying.
Face it, the American public at large does not care about FISA issues, Free Speech, or Habeas Corpus.
Each time the Democratic Congress has caved to Bush, their poll numbers go down. I guess we thought Congress had hit rock bottom when they caved to Bush on the Iraq Supplemental, Reid and Pelosi had to prove us wrong by digging a new, deeper hole. And breaking a few sewage pipes in the process.
We've come to expect this crap from the Republicans in the House and the Senate. But the Dem base is livid that the politicians they worked hard to elect, like Klobuchar, McCaskill, and Webb, just voted not just for fascism, but for incompetent fascism. The people in charge of this operation will be guys like Gonzalez, who despite shredding the Constitution on surveillance and torture and endless detentions are too fucking stupid to know when an Arab company is about to take over the largest ports in the U.S. And before some muslim, mexican hating wingnut suddenly starts crying racism, the problem wasn't an Arab company coming into the U.S., it's that the Administration didn't know it was happening. But back to the Democrats.
They are fools because they just rolled over to placate the 28% who will never vote for them anyway, while pissing off the millions that actually do vote for them. They are fools because they enable the Big Lie from the administration that we need to cut back on liberties and oversight because they endanger us.
They are cowards because 6 years after 911, they still roll over for the most unpopular president since Nixon when Bush accuses them of being weak. And they still haven't gotten it through their thick fucking skulls that by giving into the right wing rather than standing up to them, Democrats are epitomizing weakness, not strength.
And lastly, they are traitors for egregiously violating their oath of office, in which they promise to defend the Constitution. Not the country, though the right wing talking point that this is "to protect us" is bullshit. The Constitution. And this is why I hold Webb especially responsible: how many government jobs has the man had? How many oaths of office has he taken? He just broke those oaths and sold us out.
He's right that you would go to prison; it would just be for possessing the drugs instead of dealing them. He enticed you to sell him drugs that you might not have otherwise, but he didn't entice you into possessing them.
But of course my attorney would argue that the only reason I possessed the drugs in the first place was to provide them to the cop who was pressuring me to sell him some merchandise, and that it was part of the entrapment. It doesn't involve drugs, but I'll use the Ruby Ridge fiasco as an example. An undercover ATF agent asked Randy Weaver to provide him some (illegal) sawed-off shotguns. Weaver refused, saying he did not have the money. The agent ended up buying the guns and giving them to Weaver with instructions for the length he wanted. Now Mr. Weaver might have possessed the illegal guns (he says the ATF agent must have shortened them some more), but he never would have had them if it weren't for the law enforcement officer trying to entrap him.
That's assuming he directly asked for the drugs, of course...Most of the time, they won't do that.
Most of the time, yes, because they should know by now that doing so is a get out of jail free card.
Kindly take the leftist hyperventilating over to the DailyKos
Oh, do be honest: the reason you wingnuts hate DailyKos is because they like to back up their stuff with facts. And if there is one thing hated above all by wingnuts, it's inconvenient facts.
think it was NBC that stuffed a model rocket motor into a pickup truck gas tank a few years ago
They sure did, and there's no love lost for NBC. However, as you say, that was years ago. Whereas Fox has labeled Mark Foley as a Democrat from Florida, and then did the same thing to Arlen Specter when he didn't toe the line.
I'll agree that Fox is terribly biased to the right on the day that fewer than 75% of the journalists at the other networks are registered Democrats.
This old canard. Yawn. 1) Media owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Who has more say at the place you work: the peons or the bosses? and 2) the Democratic party is a conservative party. They only look "liberal" when placed up against the far right wing and the fascist neocons.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Socrates and Adams when they say that good people just have no interest in politics.
Except that getting anything good accomplished requires politics.
spent convincing people that Hillary is bad because of her moderate position on the war.
The moderate position on the war is acknowledging it was a terrible mistake to go in in the first place and to get the fuck out asap.
I am equally puzzled about where the animosity comes from
It comes from the fact that the right wing decided to hate Bill and Hilary back in 1992 for no particular reason.
Gore had to fight hard against his "boring" image, and I don't think he ever really won.
You can thank our atrocious media for that one.
The first I ever heard of her, she was going to overhaul the US medical system. Which seemed a bad idea at the time, especially considering that she was not an elected official. Then when you saw what she came up with, it was unbelievable how bad it was.
Which insurance company do you work for? Because only an employee of that industry could possibly see saving Americans trillions of dollars while providing better care as a bad thing.
However, Bush has never been a conservative
He was plenty conservative for conservatives when they backed him to the hilt on both of his elections, on his economic and social policies, and of course the Global War on Terrah. But now that conservatism has led this country into the worst clusterfuck in 80 years, "he's no longer conservative".
Pushing his radical agenda, which doesn't even reflect genuine conservative values
Of course it does. Conservatives are trying to excuse the complete failure of conservatism by blaming it's failures on Bush, rather than realizing that the movement itself is a failure. As Digby pointed out, conservatives are people in the good graces of other conservatives. When they aren't, they're liberal.
"holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton."
With one giant difference. There should have been Clinton Republicans the same way there were Reagan Democrats. The man embraced GOP positions from trade to law enforcement to deregulation to balancing the budget to welfare reform. But no, righties made the decision to hate Clinton's guts because he beat their candidate, and because there is a very strong correlation between being a rightie and being a real asshole.
Whereas with Bush, if you don't hate him, there's something wrong with you no matter what your political affiliation is. The laziness. The incompetence. The cronyism. The fascism. The series of indefensible fuckups that have led to the deaths of over 10,000 Americans.
With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter.
Carter's problem wasn't a lack of competence, it was a lack of charisma and a string of bad luck.
What are the cowering, wimpering, cut and run democrats going to do then?
Fuck off.
But here's a way to verify: Click on the Republican topic and see the number of positive Republican stories. Then click on the Democrat topic and see the number of positive Democrat stories.
Well, lets see: getting over 10,000 Americans killed, blowing the budget, creating a new Gilded Age, shredding the Constitution and demonizing anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with you will put a bit of a damper in the number of positive stories about you.
An anonymous reader points to this Drudge Report
There's your problem right there.
As if the other side never does that? Please.
Not only are they not remotely comparable, they aren't even on the same planet. Remember McCain getting hit with the "illegitimate black child" smear back in 2000 and shut your big yapper.
As a retired Captain (USAF), I took great offense at Al Gore's election-2000 team explicitly trying to get them to throw out the absentee votes of GIs stationed overseas.
I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.
Love him or hate him, Rove is a brilliant and cunning political strategist.
Rove isn't brilliant, Rove is a one hit wonder: hard right, all the time, and demonize your opponent by any means necessary. While that one hit was good for several elections, he has doomed the GOP to minority status for at least a couple decades, and that's with a good chunk of the Democrats remaining spineless incompetent cowards.
For example, Rumsfeld wasn't tossed out until after the 2006 election. If he had been fired a few months earlier, the Republicans would have had a better chance of holding onto the Senate. If he had forced out Cheney and the other neocons, hung Abramoff and Foley out to dry, and sought a genuinely new Iraq policy, they might have held on to the House as well.
What are you trying to do, one up the parent on stupidity? If complimenting an individual or group is an insult to the rest by omission, then we could never praise or reward anyone.
RealClimate is about as objective as Al Gore.
You, like Al Gore, are entitled to your own opinion. But you, like Al Gore, are not entitled to your own set of facts. Gore uses facts. You rely on disingenuous asshatery. Oh, and RealClimate is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to those bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
Antarctic ice is increasing
Because warmer air carries more moisture. The ice isn't increasing because the air is getting cooler, it's getting thicker because there is more precipitation. Which you would of course know if you'd read the link, but too many facts in one day and your head might explode.
and all the ice cores there show a current cooling trend
Bullshit.
because the only places on the earth with significant recent warming are in Alaska, Canada and Russia
Bullshit. In Montana, the state next to mine, they've had more 100 degree days since 2000 than they did in the entire previous century.
Averaging all the earth's temperatures together to find a warming trend and then blaming that trend for occurrences taking place where it's not warming is either grossly ignorant or grossly deceitful.
Bullshit. Taking an average disguises the true impact of climate change, which is having the greatest impact at the polls.
Okay... then you global warming fundamentalists are the new Spanish Inquisition. And you should all move to the himalayas so you can escape the impending global flood.
If we are wrong, some oil companies might not rake in 10 billion next quarter. If we are wrong, consumers will save money through reduced energy use. If you are wrong, there will be hundreds of millions of refugees across the planet, coastal cities will be completely flooded, thousands of species will become extinct and farmland will turn into swamp or desert. I'll make do with a reduced BP Amoco stock price and a reduced energy bill at the end of the month, and you can buy a canoe and try not to drown. Deal?
Racism is negative. Positive stereotypes are positive stereotypes. And you are a tool.
Oil wells in the U.S. are incredibly non-productive. People always think of oil wells as the geysers they see in movies and cartoons (or Kuwait during the first Gulf War). The reality in the U.S. is that two-thirds of them produce fewer than 5 barrels of oil a day
Because they aren't run to capacity. If wells in the U.S. really only produced an average of 5 barrels a day, the oil industry wouldn't bother to drill here. No, they just tap the most profitable wells first and leave the rest for later or only run them to fill contractual obligations. For example, I know some ranchers who signed deals to have at least X number of barrels pumped from their property. The oil company comes in, gets the X number of barrels, and then shuts off the well until the next time they come.
The problem with your conspiracy theory is that it involves a developing technology which the oil companies are perfectly suited to take advantage of (that was rude of you to selectively edit this out when you quoted me).
And you should have thought about where they financial interest lies. Why bother with geothermal energy, which needs development and has a much higher start up cost than an oil well, when oil has been obscenely profitable for them?
Transportation energy sources have several requirements to which gasoline is well suited. Cost, high energy density (both volumetric and weight), ease and speed of distribution (refueling or recharging), and safety are some that come to mind.
Electric power will take care of the vast majority of our transportation needs: freight trains can run on electricity, and GM's 17 year old EV1 would have taken care of most commuting needs. No, electric power doesn't solve everything, but it could reduce our current oil consumption to a trickle.
Except that the primary danger from oil tankers and pipelines is that they will rupture. No such risk of that with geothermal energy, but don't let an inconvenient truth get in the way of your environmentalist bashing.
our quoting wikipedia which loses you most of your credibility right away on this issue
It has far more credibility than wingnut flat earthers who couldn't have an argument if you put a gun to the head.
So, over 600 million years, where exactly do you see a correlation of CO2 vs temperature?
Try this graph for the last 400,000 years, where the Earth's atmosphere wasn't full of methane.
So, don't be a sheep. Look at the science for yourself, and stop believing those who hijack science for their own agendas.
Pot, kettle, black, sheep.
1) If you think that CO2 is causing it to flood in South Asia, you are thinking more from superstition than science. 2) Net antarctic ice is accumulating, not melting. 3) If you think CO2 is making hurricanes larger or track towards major cities, you have a screw loose.
You could have saved your time if you'd just written: bullshit, bullshit and bullshit, since it's all the same anyway. No, you can't point to any one storm and say it happened because of global warming. But warmer temperatures absolutely do worsen tropical storms, and the earth has been warming. And RealClimate shot down the "thickening Antarctic ice" canard three years ago.
You global warming deniers are the new flat earthers. But at least flat earthers didn't screw over the rest of the planet. If you are also so confident it isn't happening, move to a nice coastal area in Malaysia and stay there.
Shredding the Constitution is not popular. The incompetent, lying Alberto Gonzalez is not popular. The president is not popular. The media is not popular. If the media and Democrats did their jobs, they would point out the fact that when the Administration claims that FISA needs to be changed to protect America, the Administration is lying.
Face it, the American public at large does not care about FISA issues, Free Speech, or Habeas Corpus.
Each time the Democratic Congress has caved to Bush, their poll numbers go down. I guess we thought Congress had hit rock bottom when they caved to Bush on the Iraq Supplemental, Reid and Pelosi had to prove us wrong by digging a new, deeper hole. And breaking a few sewage pipes in the process.
We've come to expect this crap from the Republicans in the House and the Senate. But the Dem base is livid that the politicians they worked hard to elect, like Klobuchar, McCaskill, and Webb, just voted not just for fascism, but for incompetent fascism. The people in charge of this operation will be guys like Gonzalez, who despite shredding the Constitution on surveillance and torture and endless detentions are too fucking stupid to know when an Arab company is about to take over the largest ports in the U.S. And before some muslim, mexican hating wingnut suddenly starts crying racism, the problem wasn't an Arab company coming into the U.S., it's that the Administration didn't know it was happening. But back to the Democrats.
They are fools because they just rolled over to placate the 28% who will never vote for them anyway, while pissing off the millions that actually do vote for them. They are fools because they enable the Big Lie from the administration that we need to cut back on liberties and oversight because they endanger us.
They are cowards because 6 years after 911, they still roll over for the most unpopular president since Nixon when Bush accuses them of being weak. And they still haven't gotten it through their thick fucking skulls that by giving into the right wing rather than standing up to them, Democrats are epitomizing weakness, not strength.
And lastly, they are traitors for egregiously violating their oath of office, in which they promise to defend the Constitution. Not the country, though the right wing talking point that this is "to protect us" is bullshit. The Constitution. And this is why I hold Webb especially responsible: how many government jobs has the man had? How many oaths of office has he taken? He just broke those oaths and sold us out.
He's right that you would go to prison; it would just be for possessing the drugs instead of dealing them. He enticed you to sell him drugs that you might not have otherwise, but he didn't entice you into possessing them.
But of course my attorney would argue that the only reason I possessed the drugs in the first place was to provide them to the cop who was pressuring me to sell him some merchandise, and that it was part of the entrapment. It doesn't involve drugs, but I'll use the Ruby Ridge fiasco as an example. An undercover ATF agent asked Randy Weaver to provide him some (illegal) sawed-off shotguns. Weaver refused, saying he did not have the money. The agent ended up buying the guns and giving them to Weaver with instructions for the length he wanted. Now Mr. Weaver might have possessed the illegal guns (he says the ATF agent must have shortened them some more), but he never would have had them if it weren't for the law enforcement officer trying to entrap him.
That's assuming he directly asked for the drugs, of course...Most of the time, they won't do that.
Most of the time, yes, because they should know by now that doing so is a get out of jail free card.
Kindly take the leftist hyperventilating over to the DailyKos
Oh, do be honest: the reason you wingnuts hate DailyKos is because they like to back up their stuff with facts. And if there is one thing hated above all by wingnuts, it's inconvenient facts.
think it was NBC that stuffed a model rocket motor into a pickup truck gas tank a few years ago
They sure did, and there's no love lost for NBC. However, as you say, that was years ago. Whereas Fox has labeled Mark Foley as a Democrat from Florida, and then did the same thing to Arlen Specter when he didn't toe the line.
I'll agree that Fox is terribly biased to the right on the day that fewer than 75% of the journalists at the other networks are registered Democrats.
This old canard. Yawn. 1) Media owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Who has more say at the place you work: the peons or the bosses? and 2) the Democratic party is a conservative party. They only look "liberal" when placed up against the far right wing and the fascist neocons.
Look, if an undercover cop asks you to sell him drugs and you do so, you go to jail.
Nope, that's also entrapment.
Guess what, you don't need "press credentials" to take video in a public place.
Was this in a public place? Aren't conventions usually in rented property, thus voiding the "no privacy in a public place" canard?