Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 12, 2007
Burt Prelutsky :: Townhall.com Columnist
Liberals: A very modest proposal
by Burt Prelutsky
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


My friend Pat Sajak recently made an excellent point. He said that inasmuch as he doesn’t take global warming to heart, he sees no good reason to alter his life style. However, he wonders why those who are insisting they can feel the rising ocean lapping at their ankles don’t take drastic action to alter theirs.

He’s right, of course. I mean, assuming you are one of those people who actually has faith in U.N. reports and really believes that man controls the earth’s thermostat, wouldn’t you have to shape up? I mean, wouldn’t you think these worrywarts would all begin riding bicycles and start wearing their snow suits to bed? It’s damn hard taking their “The End is Near” placards seriously when they’re driving their Hummers to and from the demonstrations.

Consider Al Gore, the man who could give Chicken Little lessons in panic and hysteria. As ominous as global warming is, it obviously hasn’t done anything to spoil his appetite. And why, when he isn’t shrieking into a microphone, doesn’t he look terrified? If you thought that, say, a giant comet was hurtling at the earth or a dozen nuclear bombs were set to explode, would be you be grinning and saying “Cheese” to every camera pointed in your direction?

The thing about liberals is that they’re always telling the rest of us how to live and then, oh so conveniently, ignoring their own advice. Take such professional busybodies as Arianna Huffington and Bobby Kennedy, Jr., for instance. She excoriates people who drive SUVs while she and her two tots live in a mansion that I can guarantee sucks up BTUs at a rate that would make your head spin. As for Mr. Kennedy, who spends his life screaming about what the rest of us are doing to destroy the ozone layer, he’s constantly gadding about on private jets.

Let us not forget that other holier-than-thou character, Michael Moore, who has also sworn off commercial airlines in favor of corporate aircraft.

Of course, that brings us to her royal highness, Nancy Pelosi, non-stop Speaker of the House. First off, she insisted on an upgrade to a larger military jet than the one her predecessor had. She wanted one with a private bedroom, a kitchen, and room for her entire family -- second cousins included -- on a jet that was capable of flying non-stop from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco.

When some people began to question the need she had for this airborne palace, she insisted that rabble-rousers were only raising a stink because she was a woman. Poor dear! She had no sooner lifted that marble ceiling all by her wonderful self, and here it came crashing down on her tiara!

Personally, I think she should have the largest plane the military has available. As I see it, they’ll need a jumbo jet just to get Pelosi’s ego airborne.

What’s interesting about global warming is how quickly the Left added it to their manifesto, right along with pacifism, affirmative action, bi-lingual education, open borders, and outlawing gun ownership. What makes global warming such a joke is the way that the same liberals who know even less about climatology than I know about 18th century Romanian poetry are trying to pass themselves off as science experts. As Michael Crichton pointed out, when folks start talking about consensus among scientists, they’re talking politics, not science. Nobody goes around claiming there’s a consensus of experts when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics or asks the U.N. to decide if there’s any validity to DNA. Only with global warming are we supposed to put it to a vote, and then abide by the results of a fixed election.

Let a scientist suggest that man plays a very puny role when it comes to determining the earth’s climate, and you can count on Al Gore’s goon squads trying to bully him into silence, and even questioning his right to teach or to conduct research.

When it’s pointed out that in the 1970s, in a world very much like the one in which we now live, the same crowd was worried sick over the coming ice age, it’s either dismissed as irrelevant or condemned as heresy.

The last time I argued with a left-winger about global warming, he actually said, “But what if we’re right?”

What logic! What insight! I felt as if I were arguing with someone transported from the Dark Ages, someone convinced that the earth was flat. Even if you showed him photos taken from outer space, showing the curvature of the earth, he would still say, “But what if I’m right?”

Funny, isn’t it, that these alarmists are always anxious to play the “what if” game when it comes to global warming, but not when it comes to global terrorism. Ask them, for example, what happens if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq, leaving it ripe for Al Qaeda? What happens if we ignore Iran and its threat to nuke its enemies? Or what happens if we decide to quit policing the world and leave such matters strictly up to the U.N.? (After all, they did a bang-up job in Cambodia in the 1970s and are doing equally fine work today in Darfur.)

The reason it’s so easy to despise liberals isn’t simply because they’re such blockheads, but because they are so hypocritical and self-righteous.

Understand, though, that I’m not suggesting they are entirely worthless. What I am suggesting is that we establish whether my suspicion is correct that they not only think like chickens and squawk like chickens, but actually taste like chicken. We could then raise them as livestock.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of "The Secret of Their Success: Interviews with Legends and Luminaries."
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Liberals are good for a few things
like raising your bloodpressure - if you need it.

making sure you can deal with frustration.

making a point in 5 words or less (because they yammer so much, that's all you will have time for.

But the best is still:

Setting a BAD example.


Still write a good column.

Excellent Burt!
You expose the Liberals for what they are. Hypocritical and self-righteous. I would add insane! And though you say "I’m not suggesting they are entirely worthless." I will, They are entirely worthless!

Watch out for the Moonbats flapping..er wings!

Now you've really done it, Mr. Prelutsky
You've gone and voiced support for the very evil practice of eating meat. The lefties are going to be apoplectic.

And there is a very good reason why we should not raise leftists as livestock: Should we start consuming them, even though they may taste like chicken, remember that we would also be consuming not only Mrs. W. J. Clinton and HRH Queen Nancy, but also Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Mikulski, and even Rosie O'Donnell. Doing this would, of course, spread Mad Cow Disease.

And for you lefties: That is what is called a joke. Flame me if you must, but do realize how stupid, petty, and hypocritical it will make you look.

Like old disposable diaper debate
Liberals who don't reduce their use of BTUs remind me of those women 15-20 years ago who traveled the country pushing cloth diapers for American mothers all the while secretly using disposable one on their own babies. Their strong advocacy for washable--and more environmentally beneficial--cloth diapers "permitted" them the convenience of disposables for their own babies. Ergo, a global warming nut like Gore is allowed to leave a large carbon imprint (i.e., mansion, big cars, private jets, and consumption of mass quanities of animal meat and all the colonic gas that results from it) because he advocates whatever the hell it is that he advocates. You know: it all balances out in the end. Liberals allow nothing to inconvenience them.

Burt, You slay me!
I’ve been dying to ask, why didn’t you title you book, “Conservatives Are from Mars (Liberals Are from Uranus): 101 Reasons I'm Happy I Left the Left.”

Shinque:
Good one with the mad cow disease.

You asked for it.
Well, one has to say it given how you set it up.

What happens if Bush invades Iran? Syria? North Korea?

Can conservatives really claim to have the answers?

Have conservatives really thought about the consequences of their actions?

what if?
What if a fetus constituted life? As a nurse I don't feel qualified to make a judgement for liberals.

Burt, Albore is not
really a hypocrite. After all the investigation has been done we now know that he's in it for the money. He is in business to sell carbon offsets and he wants the Government to legislate a market. He worked for approval of Kyoto at the same time that he created a company that would financially benefit from Kyoto. If he was a Republican he would be in jail, not getting accolades from an ignorant Hollywood community. I would say that the Hollywood limousine liberals are hypocrites, Albore is a crook.

drivebyposting writes:
"What happens if Bush invades Iran? Syria? North Korea? Can conservatives really claim to have the answers? Have conservatives really thought about the consequences of their actions?"

To which the obvious reply is:

Have liberals really thought about the consequences of their INactions?

Primus...
Good one...Atypical Lib response from DBP!

Mr. Gore, Mama was wrong
Children in Africa will still be starving even if you eat everything in the grocery store.

The Poor will not have an 'equal' share of the resources of the planet even if you use fifty times the amount your American neighbours use (which is about 2,000 times the amount as The Poor use, at lest).

Toddlers will still not have iPods even if you buy everything Neiman-Marcus has for sale.

Face it, Mr. Gore -- when Mama said "Clean your plate, Albert -- children in Africa are starving!" she did not mean that you could alleviate their suffering by consuming all the resources in the State of Tennessee.

Good Job, Burt
just because Al Gore lives in the mantion, why should we care about our planet.
And your silly lies about liberals and pacifism.
How about just and nessesary wars ? I think almost everybody was for the just war with Afghanistan, correct? Where was the pacifism here?.
A few wrotten socialists are not liberals, you know that ,Burt. Stop your c*p with the straw man.

Sashal
If you're going to pass yourself off as an intellectual, how about using spell checker? Maroon.

Randy
Bush and me are on the same page, as far as English is concerned

BIGbelly
You understate Gore's role. He is in fact the Master Baiter of Global Warming.(that one was too juicy to pass on)
As Loyal Democrat might say, John Edwards is right, there are two Americas. The first is inhabited by those of us who constitute the great unwashed masses. Our place in life is to willingly, no gratefuly(sp) work our fingers to the bone and sacrifice material possesions for the greater good. of course the definition of the greater good is the benefit of the elites. The second America is inhabited by the enlightened aristocracy of the left(kinda like the dictatorship of the proletariat). The members of this elite class are dedicated to showing the rest of us just how brilliant and dedicated to the little guy they are. Of course in exchange for the brilliant leadership we recieve, these aristocrats are to be granted a luxurious and effortless lifestyle. It is certainly insulting to ask such a benefactor of society to sacrifice even the smallest luxury.

moonbat
Excellent!! Excellent!

Let's not be too hasty
I'm trying to figure out how I can cash in on those carbon credits. Once I do, you can bet I'll make Algore look like a real piker in his alarmism. Isn't that what all of this is about?

There is one question that goes a step further than just walking the walk. If man is responsible for climate change, then we must be able to not only stop it but to reverse it. Why are there no proposals on how this can be accomplished?

Pelosi's Jet
Pelosi wants a big jet? Fine. I'm with Burt. Give her the biggest one in the inventory: a C-5. It's big enough to hold her ego with room to spare, it's about as quiet as a nuclear detonation, as comfortable as a rack from the Spanish Inquisition, and as reliable as a 1987 Yugo (50% chance it will break and be held up at the airfield for 2 or 3 days.)

HJG

HJG
I suggest a C-130! Nice and bumpy, loud and drafty, and yet big enough to fit Pelosiovich's ego AND her azz!

HEY! IF it's good enough for the troops, should be GOOD ENOUGH for the COMMIE from San Fruitcisco.

sashal
The Libs were against Afganistan from the start. They only became for that war once we invaded Iraq so they did not appear anti war.

drivebyposting: Clinton misadventures?
drivebyposting writes: Monday, March, 12, 2007 2:57 AM
You asked for it.
Well, one has to say it given how you set it up.

What happens if Bush invades Iran? Syria? North Korea?

Can conservatives really claim to have the answers?

Have conservatives really thought about the consequences of their actions?

+Really? We can debate all day long about the strategic & tactical merits of the war in Iraq:, e.g. no post-9/11 attack has occurred because Iraq is functioning as a "terrorist vacuum" cleaner. Like you I'm actually concerned about a potential invasion of IRAN, et al. But then again a group of "brilliant" Democrats (e.g., Hillary Clinton) gave BUSH a "banket authorization" IOT wage his War on Terrorism.

+That being said, what about the lingering effects of Democrat actions? Let's contrast BUSH's actions w/ the CLINTON administration's "military misadventures":
-Useless warfare WRT pandering to UN/European opinion:
*Somalia: Thousands of Somalis killed. Several Rangers & Delata Force members died because the CLINTON state department wouldn't allow them armored vehicles- TOO OFFENSIVE YOU KNOW. But hen again the left thinks the miliatry (primarily comprised of minimally-franchised white males) are expendible in the face of ongoing foriegn policy of "UN" pandering
*Bosnia: We bombed/killed thousands of innocent women & children in Belgrade on behalf of an ineffectual NATO- where's the outrage?
-And my personal favorite: the CLINTON adminstration allowed the BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS to play the race card & drive the invasion of the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere IOT place their favorite pet Marxist Thug, Aristide, back in power- I personnaly dealt w/ his Thugs folks.

+We're still in Bosnia & Haiti: what is your exit strategy? Does any Democrat-apologist have an answer?

Hypocrites
Ariana, Al and fellow idiots, listen up:

We're getting tired of you telling us how to live and then you lead your own lives of extravagance. So, here's what you need to do.

1. Al, get rid of that energy guzzling house you have down in Nashville. Ariana, get rid of your mansion and you Kennedy's get rid of your compounds and mansions. A small, energy efficient tent should be plenty.

2. Get rid of all the limos and SUV's in your own entourages. If you need to go anywhere(like the liquor store) a bicycle will be a lot better.(yes, you'll still emit carbon dioxide, its a natural process called breathing but you can "offset" that if you plant a tree). If you do need to use hydrocarbon based transportation, try using the public transit buses to get around town and never ever fly anywhere, always ride the dog.

3. Don't use any electricity. Since you enviro-nuts did a hatchet job on nuclear power(clean, efficient, no-emissions) it has to be made by burning something(coal, oil, gas). The only exception to this would be if used your bicycle to power a small generator, a windmill or a solar panel near your tent. But, wait a minute, can't use the windmills because they're ugly and birds might fly into the blades.

4. Learn to eat un-cooked food. Cooking requires a heat source like fire. Fires put those nasty carbon emissions into the air.

5. Remember the greatest source of hot air about global warming comes from you own mouth. So, Al, Arianna, Bobby Jr. et al, SHUT UP!!!!!







Vic
I take exception to your use of the word "ignorant" to describe the Hollywood Limo Libs. Ignorant means they don't know any better. A more appropriate word would be "stupid."

To dollface
The average Hollywood limo-liberal probably has never been educated in any realistic subjects involving math or science, therefore they may just be ignorant. At least, in polite society that would be the assumption.

If they had attempted to be educated in these subjects and were unable to graduate, then yes they would be stupid.

If they did graduate, and do know better, and yet still advocate for everyone else to scrimp on energy usage while they wallowed in usage, then they would be the hipocrites that Burt described. If they had a side buisiness selling carbon sinks, then they would be a crook like Albore.

sashal writes...
"just because Al Gore lives in the mantion, why should we care about our planet.
And your silly lies about liberals and pacifism.
How about just and nessesary wars ? I think almost everybody was for the just war with Afghanistan, correct? Where was the pacifism here?.
A few wrotten socialists are not liberals, you know that ,Burt. Stop your c*p with the straw man."

You can't complain about a strawman after setting up one of your own. Did Burt say we shouldn't care about our planet just because Gore lives in a mantion?

Vic II
Well said.

I repeat
Why doesnt Al Gore use teleconferencing???? lol lol

do as I say not as I do.
I think I am ok with the liberal dems and there unending gaggle moronic issues. That statement will need a little clarification. If we can tax the rich at an economy choking rate why not tax only democrats for funding open borders and have them take enough illegals into their homes to keep them off the streets. If we are in the middle of global warming, why not take the planes, BTU excessive homes and second and third homes and all cars away from the dems and tax these the above for the dems only at 75 times the rate for those of us who dont believe anything that albore says. If they want no war with jihadist's then they get to spend the night with those incarcerated in Gitmo. I am sure that the Kucinich crowd would have a lovely evening talking and reasoning with the guests at Gitmo. If they want a draft then draft only dems and put them in a separate military and let them go whereever we have a problem first. I think I could find another fifty creative ideas for their hypocritcal thinking but this little box I am writing in wont allow it

"Non-stop Nan"
I love it.

enviros
Are the very epitome of hypocrisy. No sacrifice is too great for ordinary people to make, and if they don't do it willingly force 'em. On the other hand talking about the need to impose these sacrifices, and forcing them on others is all that is required of the do gooders.
The "endangered species" is another favorite of theirs. No cost is too great, no danger is too great for us. they of course are safe and sound and busy looking for something else worthy of their attention.

The Doom Hucksters

.....Burt ...

.....Last evening I switched over to CNN Headline News to check out the opposition and right in the middle of the news the talking head announced the a "majority" of the Earth's scientists had announced that if immediate steps were not taken to curb Global Warming ...then ...by the year 2080 there will be wide spread famine caused by droughts and the polar bear would be extinct ...all this against a background of dust swept plains and swimming polar bears ...

.....I guess this is what passes for breaking news at CNN ...no explation was offered for where all the Earth's water was going to go or why polar bears could not exist on land ...but who worries about details ...when your audience has a thirty second attention span ...all you need are sound bites ...

.....I believe that the Earth's Flora benefits from an increase in CO2 levels ...plants become lush and green ....the temperate zone widens and the growing seasons lengthen ...people grow more crops and eat more vegetables ...why this should be a Greenpeace and Peta's wet dream .....COLOSSUS

Burt, My Favorite Quote of the Day:
"The reason it’s so easy to despise liberals isn’t simply because they’re such blockheads, but because they are so hypocritical and self-righteous."

I just love that. Just love it. Thank you. Great article and once again, you are spot on.

Also, Dave Stone
Your post was full of excellent ideas. I think the time is right and now to have an expose/comedy show of what you described.

Seriously, the material is endless....

hey i had my post censored
i had a post on here not more than 15 minutes ago and it was pulled.

speaking of hypocrisy.

i did not curse or anything.

why was it pulled, can anyone tell me.

global sham
If indeed man is the cause of the problem of survival of the earth then it follows that only large exterminations will solve the problems - anything else is just a bandaid .
So my Liberal friends too timid to say what you really believe- then the problem is--who gets eliminated?
Now just fess up and tell us who YOU decide are the unclean?
Wanna bet it won't include folks on either coast? or of course those downtrodden segments of society so long held down by bad old white men.
What elitist crap

Religiouslib
I honestly can say I did not flag yours as offensive, so I do not know why that would've happened to you.

However, someone obviously saw fit to commit Abortion to your innocent piece of tripe. Deal with it.

Hypocracy..thy name is Liberalism

Mr. Right
Would you like to be one of our Division Sales Representatives?

Vic and I are selling Carbon Offset Certificates from our Nigerian Tree Farms in direct competition with Al Gore.

Due to the price war, THEY must call 1-900-462-3665 for the latest prices.
Each new order comes with a free autographed copy of Vic's Carbon Footprint Calculator.

______________________________________
Pelosi's jet?
She could save us taxpayers a lot of money and cut C02 generation by just jumping on her broom!

shells
at least thanks for responding but as you can see in my re-post i only stated facts. so why is that tripe?

i never curse or call names.

by the way hypocrisy is spelled this way

A solution we can all support
I think it's time we quit carping about the liberals' lifestyle and the global warming crisis and get serious about fixing it.

And I think I've come up with a solution that everybody can support, liberals and conservatives alike.

Back when the problem was global cooling, laws were passed to fix the situation. For instance, aerosol sprays and freon for air conditioners were banned or highly regulated. That worked so well that we apparently overshot the mark and now have global warming.

So simply reverse those laws. Make aerosol sprays mandatory and require the release of freon gas into the atmosphere. This will doubtlessly cool the earth back down.

Here's the bumper sticker:

Free the Freon and Save the Planet

This way, liberals don't have to change their lifestyle. Conservatives get to repeal a law. And the earth cools back down. We avert a crisis.

What? You say the problem isn't global warming anymore? Now it's climate change?

Oh well, never mind.
Bob Bridges

Comments
Sashal - You are incorrect on several points.

- The main point of the article is that, as always, the stringent requirements that liberals seek to impose on others never apply to themselves. You have done nothing to disprove this point.

- You echo the dubious charge that failure to bow to the new Church of Liberalism article of faith, AGW, proves that conservatives don't care about the environment. This is an old, old trick of the liberals. Just like not buying into disastrous Marxist economic schemes is proof that we hate the poor. The reality is that we DO care about the planet, we just don't believe that liberal claptrap about AGW has any impact on it. Or perhaps we adhere to the scientists' original prediction of a coming ice age, and view the current divergence into AGW theories as heresy.

- As has been pointed out, liberals were indeed against liberating Afghanistan at the time. We were told that there was no proof that they were responsible for 9/11, that they were the best fighters in the world whom we had no chance of defeating, the invasion was declared a "quagmire" by the NYT within the first 2 weeks, etc. etc. Fortunately, alternate media now makes it a bit more difficult for libs to re-write history.

NotADemocrat - another example of the hypocrisy you point out was the unwavering support of the "feminists" for serial sexual harrasser Clinton and their vicious attacks on his victims.

Vic - Isn't it amusing how Hollywood highschool dropouts, whose sole claim to authority is a pair of silicon breasts or a pleasing face, fail to appreciate the irony of their calling Harvard MBA Bush stupid?

Religiouslib - I'm not sure why your post was deleted; nothing offensive there, just your usual ignorance of the definition of hypocrisy. As I've pointed out several times in the past, Republicans always drum the guilty out of office and often out of the party. They even force the resignation of those who have not actually done anything wrong and have been set up by libs, like Delay, Libby and Gingrich. Libs, on the other hand, re-elect and celebrate even the most egregious criminals. This is the hypocrisy.

Man is a procrastinator.
Given the infinite possibilities of the human mind, man will come up with a solution for problems (e.g., fossil fuel substitutes, next generation of smart weapons, etc...) as the need and the economics dictate. That's the way it's always been. That's why I'm doing my part be driving a gas guzzling 8 cylinder and not changing any of my habits, while continuing to do everything that I can to keep conservatives in power in the gov't. Putting and keeping conservatives in power helps to ensure that man will be free of any red tape and other handicaps that the libs are constantly trying to install.
************* Oh, and carbon credits - who wants to bet that an audit of Owl Gore's company that sells carbon credits will reveal that they have not planted the trees and all the other fru fru that they promised in the Enron-style forward discounting accounting processes that it employs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

A New Idea
I have just read most of the posts on this thread and the rhetorical and ignorant garbage spewed about Democrats and liberals. I didn't read them all, most were just too stupid to spend time on.

I've been thinking over the past couple of weeks that maybe the entire country would be better off divided into self-governing, independent regions, like city-states, with inter-region commerce and travel, but still having ideological identities and laws. Then all of you conservatives could be together and not have to suffer liberal ideas or all of the other characteristics you so obviously despise. You could go ahead and legislate a religion for everybody, outlaw reproductive choices, movies, and nobody would ever argue with you unless you started arguing among yourselves, (but that would never happen, would it?)

You could station armed guards at your borders to keep anyone out who thinks differently than you.

Each region could comprise of 4 or 5 states, decided by geography, not population, and you could fill your papers with the news you like instead of the news you get - then your media, radio jockeys, Town Hall columnists could just keep telling you how wonderful you all are, and then you could keep reminding each other, as you do on this blog.

I think I'm going to start pushing this idea around, maybe you all could help, I'm sure that the idea of living in a liberal-free zone is just your cup of tea. You could make Ann Coulter your president, or Queen, or whatever you like and you wouldn't have to spend so much time manufacturing an enemy that hardly knows you exist.

Also,
I think I'll post this around TH and see if I can't enough interest to start a movement.

Dog - in just a few short
months, the libs will have spent themselves out and be whining to get into the conservative states which would really be flourishing. Liberals are mentally ill.

dog - that idea isn't new.
I think it's call the Fairness Doctrine, isn't it?

kimberly
please grow up.

john galt
so it is not hypocrisy for you to decide that libby is innocent or delay shouldn't have been indicted or gingrich (who was removed by his own party and now an admitted adulterer) is also innocent.

come on, i have never defended a dem who was charged with illegal activities and did not vote for clinton because of his terrible morals.

as far as afghanistan, i don't know where you got your info but the dems and liberals supported that invasion with no problem .
the whole country and world were with bush on that until he squandered all the good will in following the p-nac plan to invade iraq which had been in the works since at least 97.

Ko, Sizzlean
Sizzlean - Youe mean like the conservative states that are flourishing right now?

Yeah, I'm just astonished at the numbers of liberals lining up to move to Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kansas, for example. Those poor liberals who live in places like Pasadena, Manhattan, Connecticut and North Chicago are just praying for a chance to move to Arkansas and watch their living conditions improve.

Ko
I'm hardly talking about the fairness doctrine.

I'll explain later.

dog
i know how you feel.

many conservatives have been sitting in a circle and affirming all their myths for the past 20 years and are shocked just shocked when someone says they have it wrong.

what concerns me is that i participate on liberal boards and although there are extremists who say vile things about conservatives they don't call for killing or destroying millions of their fellow americans as some posters do here.


sizzlelean
exactly what concerns me.

you have stated that millions upon millions of your fellow americans are mentally ill simply because they don't agree with you politically.

that type of thinking is insiduous and anti-american and anti-democratic.

so then you think all liberals should be put in mental hospitals right?

Liberals- a case study in insanity
There is an old AA saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". Liberals are the greatest example of this axiom. They are insane in their ideas and their beliefs. The funny thing about liberals is that they rarely if ever reflect. Sane people reflect on the consequences of their ideas and make adjustments or rethink their propositions entirely. Addicts react and think not a wit of the potential outcomes. Actually liberals remind me in many ways of "cult" leaders- they want others to drink the kool aid and take the consequences of their insanity while they get awash in the power intoxication of their ideas. Take for example Iraq. After 9/11 President Bush immediately went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many on the left recoiled in opposition to this action. Then Iraq came. Now the left rales about Afghanistan. The insanity of such thinking never seems to dawn on these people. Why not be consistent and just admit you are pacifists and leave it at that. Now I realize you can be against the war in Iraq and do so on the basis of how it's been fought, but don't pretend you are for only the right war when you have been against any war that has ever been fought ( of course Kosovo was Clinton's war so that doesn't count). These people are opportunists pure and simple. As Mr. Prelutsky states "the consequences of pulling out are never really addressed"- (I paraphrase) , It's the impulsive knee jerk hatred of the right that motivates these people. Sure , there are extreme right wingers with similar reactions that make little if any sense, but the left is so far and away beyond reason it has become a prescription for defeat and cowardly betrayal of the American spirit and way of life. If Jimmy Carter and others on the left prefer to sit with Chavez and Castro and Bush is compared to Hitler- then any form of communication between left and right is insanity.

religiouslib
but they do call for unbridled killing of the pre-born and the current white house occupants. hmmmm....this is superior how?

Religiouslib
Thanks for the spell check. By the way, you may want to try to use Periods, Commas and Capitalization within your sonnet.

As far as your List is concerned, meh, not impressed. You know it's bloviated and a real true story applies which waters every label down, despite what the MSM left under your eco-friendly hemp filled pillow.

Should I ask, do the Leftist only embrace their own sexual predators, adulterers, drug addicts and gamblers? I can answer that, YES!

There is your tripe.

HYPOCRISY....thy name is Liberalism.

dog - of course you are right
I mean, correct. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to create a conservative-free zone, yes? First the airwaves, then who knows? Pretty soon Manhattan, north Chicago, Pasadena and Connecticut won't be the only places free of pesky conservatism. Tell me, aren't you even a little bit worried about the potential latte shortage in that event?

Dog
Why would lefties have to move from their little enclaves as long as they have the Red states and areas with more conservative policies to take some of the burdens?

If where productive taxpayers live are mostly tiny, funky coastal micro-apartments, where do the kids go?

If all the babies coming home from your hospitals have their own Medicaid number issued before leaving the hospital, how likely are those kids to grow up paying more into the system than taking out?

If to keep the welfare system afloat, as well as try to preserve green spaces outside the windows of the rich, the cost of living becomes such that you can't live in the liberal city-state unless you are either a bajillionaire or completely on welfare----who's gonna take out the trash, fix the pipes, maintain the pools, or do other tasks that are neither venture capitalism nor worth $50/hour?

Religious Lib
QUESTIONS:
Is it ok for a religious person to make unkind remarks about homosexuals?
Is it ok for a homosexual activist to make unkind remarks about religious people?

Why is that a religious person who expresses a belief in homosexuality being bad is dismissed as a bigot while the homosexual activist who blasphemes the beliefs of religious people is praised for his "courage"?

Red and Blue
I think liberals in elite coastal cities don't understand how much their lives depend on more conservative suburbs.

Those suburbs are where the firemen, cops, pool guys, waitresses, and baristas live, and commute into the city. Most of these working-class folks cannot afford to live in the city itself. These vital cogs of the city can only afford to live near the city because suburbs are much less likely to go for hare-brained liberal schemes, and less likely to accept subsidized housing.

Try imagining NYC without Joisey. The Manhattanites would celebrate for about five minutes, then wonder why their cup of coffee suddenly went up to 20 bucks.

Dog
Hello again!

Actually, I do love and have dreamed of having a divide of government where Repblicans and live and rule in 1/2 the states and the Democrats can take control fo their own 1/2.

What a beautiful world...Most of my paycheck would be mine and not going to special social programs to give free healthcare and free money to illegals, or rather...US citizens who are perfectly able to work but prefer to leach off of the system the dems created.

Imagine, hard working, thriving, functioning states, happily existing togther, all races, creeds, colors and religions. No one is special that requires more than the next sob story. Everyone is equal. Where Jews, Catholics, Buddhists ,etc can sing Christmas Carols and enjoy Christmas lights at schools and the malls, while still being able to celebrate their religious openly, vivaciously, and with just as much fanfare.

No poltical correctness lynchings. You're either a rude turd or you're not.

Your liberal state would be bankrupt in months. Everyone has a sob story, everyone feels entitled to more government tax payer cash because they can't speak the language, they have a different skin color, or that they prefer to have sex with someone of their same gender. There will be more coming, more in droves, who feel entitlement and have their hands out begging for more and more. Why? Because they are special....They can't work, they have hurt feelings, they want tradtions change to suit there needs---fine! Abortion clinics around each corner next to the Starbucks! The liberal state will be a free for all. But who will pay for it? You.

As a side note and a true story. I go to my grocery store each week, and each time I see the same woman who bags my groceries. She is elderly, she is blind in one eye and completely deaf. She cannot speak, and she also never learned to sign. However, this woman, who I feel has every reason in this world to stay home and collect government money because geeze...she's 1/2 blind, she's fully deaf and she cannot communicate...man.

BUT, she comes to work, every day, and she smiles. It is important for her to be there, a person who is clearly disadvantaged, not by her skin, not by her sexual preference...but by her maladies and yet she still wants to be and insists on being a productive person in society.

She is a hero, and she would belong on my side of the state.

It doesn't matter if it is true
It doesn't matter if Global Warming is real or not. The emissions from autos are dangerous to breathe especially in city's that have major smog like Los Angelese, Denver, and Phoenix. Also people who live near the petro-chemical complexes have much higher rates of cancer and people who work in the industries have inumerable health problems. The groundwater and land near such plants are polluted and the petro-chemical industry doesn't care and are criminally and deliberately covering up the health problems of their employees which was discovered by a lawyer working on the case of a man whose bones were disolving in his fingers for working in the manufacture of plastic made from oil. The lawyer found a document that proved the petro-chemical industry knew all the dangers and were just trying to stall the EPA through lobbying for politicians who were friendly to big oil. This case has disappeared from the news leading me to believe they have paid off someone to hush it up.

Changing Subjects
Ever notice how Libs (such as Tehran Kim) don't seem to be able to address the underlying points of conservative columns, which, in this case, is the hypocracy of the people doing all the "shouting" on this AGW issue?

Nope... can't debate the broader point... just attack the columnist.

I am so glad I'm on the side that doesn't have to ignore and obfuscate to make a point.

I feel genuinely sorry for those still on the "Dark Side" of liberlism/socialism -- ideologies that fail every time they are tried.

ProfGene
Actually, it DOES matter whether it is true. Are you keeping up with the antics of the UN? A global tax (define global as western companies, exempting all others) on carbon emissions? At the present, the only disagreement between what the UN wants and this administration is where the money collected would go.

As far as whether oil companies "care" about pollution, I think you are condemning all for the practices of a few. Many have gone all out to clean up things that were polluted years ago, before any of us had any knowledge of alternative procedures.

ProfGene
I'll just bet one of your heroes is Erin Brokovich, isn't she?

Walk the Walk Kimberly
Using your own logic Kimberly why haven't you developed an alternative fuel by now for us all to use. Extremely cheap I might add so that even the poor can afford it, easily manufactured with no by-products and of course you will waive all rights to it for the betterment of your fellow man.

This should all be easy for you as I'm certain you already live a completely re-cycleable life style and you send nothing at all to the garbage pit. Your heating is 100% solar with all your electricty generatyed from your own bird friendly wind generator, said generator made from all reclaimed material. No automobile only a bicycle and the wonderous American public transit system.

Remember Kim, you yourself do not let people support the war unless they serve in it, and surely you aren't just some Al Gore aping Left Wingnut Fraud are you?

RL
You continue to miss the point. I am not defending the immoral actions of the Republicans you list, merely pointing out that they fall into different categories, and that your standards are not applied to Democrats.

Your list (and others not included on your list) can be broken down into three basic categories:
1) Individuals guilty of actual crimes, like Duke Cunningham or Jack Abramhoff
2) Individuals guilty of immoral actions which are not neccessarily criminal, like Gingrich or Foley
3) Individuals who are guilty of nothing and have been unfairly persecuted by libs, like Delay, Trent Lott and Libby.

The point is that Republicans in all three categories resign or are forced from office, whereas their Democrat counterparts not only stay in office, but are celebrated as heroes by libs. For example, Gingrich was forced from office for signing a book deal. Compare to Hillary, whose similar book deal was heralded as a great achievement. Duke Cunningham is out of office, but "Cold Cash" Jefferson is nominated for key leadership roles. Mark Foley resigns after sending inappropriate e-mails, but actual statutory rapist Studds is elevated to leadership positions in Congress. Trent Lott resigns after making a polite innocent comment about someone at a dinner in their honor, while actual KKK member Byrd is celebrated as a leader. Delay resigns after being indicted by a Democrat hack for a crime not even on the books, while drunken adultering killer Kennedy rules the Democtat party. Libby is a criminal for remembering a meaningless conversation about a non-crime differently than a journalist, but Sandy Berger is just "sloppy" for destroying classified documents. The list goes on and on.

The fact that some Republicans are corrupt does not negate our moral stance, just as corrupt priests do not invalidate the Scriptures. True hypocrisy lies in criticizing immoral behavior in others while celebrating it among your own.


Back to the subject
Before I would even consider ditching my clothes dryer or SUV I would expect to see Tipper hanging Al's wet underwear on her recently installed clothesline behind her new 1500 foot home, or Barbra biking to the local shopping mall. Lavish lifestyles, multiple homes, private jets, garages stocked full of luxury cars and SUV's - whew!- it makes my head feel light! Each elite carbon footprint overshadows 100 of mine (at least).

Hey Burt
What's that term I'm looking for? You know when you use two words in the same sentence that just absolutly can not go together, you know
Military-Intelligence
Government-Assistance
Union-Labor

Well you did it in the title of this article:
Liberals-Modest

Sekhment
You classist, you. Why would you assume that all firemen, waitresses, etc. are the kind of conservatives that post on this site? The fact that you can only see people in terms of stereotypes is possibly what keeps you trapped inside of your own conservatism.

And you think what, that there are no wealthy or well-to-do republicans who live in pricey little suburbs and drink latte?

I think you should take a trip around the country and talk to people.

As for people with the jobs that you mentioned, in the new city-states people could cross borders to work just like they do in Israel. Besides, no one would HAVE to live where they didn't want to live, if they didn't like heresy laws or free speech, they could always move to a C-S where such things were legal and popular.

C'mon, guys, this isn't just my idea, it's being tossed around in political science circles more and more, mostly because the think tanks who think about such things see the country becomin too complicated and populated and unwieldy to govern from a central, single bureaucracy. I think it would make conservatives really happy, since they hate liberals to such a mind-bending degree. Demographics show many people buy homes and choose areas to live for the political ideologies of their neighbors, similar to the way Northerners turned down career offers in the South of the 60s and 70s. Why not just make that easier for everybody and formalize it?

Take a ride through any of the threads on this site, why would any of these people want to live near liberals who are so evil, stupid, dangerous, and only want to tear down the society? They clearly feel they have the absolute right answers to everything, this way they could live out the results of their philosophies.

Laugh at them
They certainly deserve it and perhaps laughter is the only medicine strong enough for sheeple to see through their hypocrisy! I'm amazed that more are not criticizing the conflict of interest for Goriacs to pay Gore for his carbon credits after he scares them to death!

Leroy
Liberals are a bad joke foisted on us by a playful God! haha. I laugh at them and rip them to shreds whenever possible. They are pathetic.

Shells
Hi, Shells - here we are again!

You said, "Most of my paycheck would be mine and not going to special social programs to give free healthcare and free money"

Fine with me, I'd be in a blue city-state and if you decided it would be best for your red city-state neighbors to get by without social security, SSI, health care, free clinics, That wouldn't affect me at all.

I love the Christmas thing - this is the most perfect example of PC on the right that has come down the pike in a long time. My sister is in the greeting card business, and now every retailer in the country is afraid to order cards that say Happy HOlidays. As for people who want to send cards to Jews, Buddhists, etc., they're screwed.

In Blue-land people could say whatever they liked on a Christmas card, and not get lectured to by pompous scolds.

Does your Redland that is open to all ethnic groups, races, religions, etc. include Mexicans? Arabs? American-Iranians, Gays, Atheists, College professors and intellectuals? Feel free to send them to us - conservatives are always mocking liberals for their fondness for diversity, but we have a different attitude toward it.

The blind old deaf lady who has to sell groceries at your local store may be there because she wants to, but what happens to her when she is too old to work at all, or has a stroke, or is otherwise disabled? In your sublime red-country where nobody has to be responsible for anybody else, you can just have her euthanized and incinerated by another red-country capitalist who has found a way to make a living.



CO2 Offsets

.....Kimbat ...

.....I am going to drive my jeep Landrover ten extra hours this week to offset your Socialist tripe .....COLOSSUS

Dog
So, I'm curious. Would you really push for an end to Federal entitlements so that the tab could be picked up by individual states as they see fit? Or am I missreading the compromise that you and "Shells" have? If you or any "lib" who posts here would be willing to do so, then that would be great. In fact, we just might have something in common. However, I must say that most true liberals that I know of wouldn't dare abolish federal entitlement programs. It's not just that Social Security is the "third rail". It seems like they are ALL the third rail. For the record, I have no problem with having a social safety net...just not at the Federal level.

Burt
Your first paragraph says it all.
If the libs believed what they said they would be very sure to DO something, everything, they could FIRST.
Then they could have time to concentrate on the rest of us.
And, of course, when we saw them acting in such a frantic fashion to give up their "carbon footprints" we would have to actually study their thinking more closely.
Instead they, as usual, want us to do the sacrificing while they set up Ponzi schemes about buying footprints and turning over power to them.
Pass the chicken, please.

Prelutsky: Laziness or Lies?
Either Prelutsky can't read or do research, or else he can do both but chooses to tell lies. First, he strives to put global warming in the realm of the ridiculous by using such words as worrywarts, Chicken Little, panic, hysteria, shrieking, and screaming, and suggests that those expressing concern about it lack the scientific background that might give them credibility. Well, you know what, I'm not a scientist either 2) Corporate America coddles its bottom line. 3) Profit comes before the public good. 4) Fossil fuels bring more profit. 5) Fossil fuels contribute to global warming: oooops, can't let people start believing that because profits might be reduced. So activate the conservative echo chamber to repeatandrepeatandrepeatandrepeat that global warming is a nothing, a joke, an Al Gore joke (the best kind).

Second, Nancy Pelosi never demanded a larger airplane. If anybody with a TV set knows that by now, Prelutsky probably knows it too. The Sergeant-at-Arms requires the Speaker of the House (whoever it is, Pelosi or Mickey Mouse or Rumpelstiltskin or whoever) to use a military plane for security purposes. It was he who made the request, not Ms Pelosi.

But, hey, why let a little truth stand in your way when you can make a Coulteresque splash by publishing an outrageous lie?

dog
Libs have a monopoly on love, taking care of the poor and charity?
My lifetime of living says the opposite. Recent studies say the opposite.
If true then why does the lib method require taxation and redistribution when the conservative way worked for so many years without that?
Why can't you trust your fellow man to give freely from the heart? Maybe because you don't trust your own heart?
Isn't this the same thing we are talking about with carbon footprints? You go first and we will follow, if we choose. Give us aour sahre of taxes and we will give plenty to the poor. Proven study.

I'm no liberal...
Sorry for the long post, but I feel I have something important to say.

I'm a young person doing the best to live below my means, and it so happens that the environment benefits from my decisions as well.

I've changed my habits and lifestyle partially due to environmental issues and partially because it makes economic sense for me to do so. I use compact flourescent light bulbs; I prefer walking over bus, and bus over car; when my old computer broke down I explicitly found a low-power replacement; I've insulated my apartment to help keep the heat in. Here's the thing -- these are all positive things for both the environment and my bottom line. My electric bill has gone down, my apartment is warmer while the gas bill stays the same, and I've lost about 20 pounds because I now walk 30-60 minutes a day.

From a liberal perspective, my actions are helping to save the environment; from a conservative perspective, I'm practicing something that's good for my pocketbook and sensible for a wide variety of other reasons. Either side would probably agree that I am making a sensible choice.

The real way forward for the environment has nothing to do with Al Gore or global warming -- it's energy independence. Energy independence ought to be a bi-partisan issue for the same basic reasons: from a liberal perspective, research on solar/wind power and cleaner (bio)fuels is a big positive from an environmental standpoint; from a conservative perspective, energy independence is a national security issue -- the sooner we can wean ourselves from Middle East mullahs, the better.

So tell me, why is there no serious bipartisan push for energy independence? A Manhattan Project-like program would reap practical benefits for Americans of all political persuasions, likely within a decade. Relying on industry alone will eventually produce a solution, but not until the price of oil goes sky-high and we've sent trillions more dollars to the coffers of tinpot, anti-American countries. I'm all for free-market economics, but even fiscal conservatives have to admit that there is a negative externality involved here: the stockholders of multinational oil corporations don't need to provide funding to defend our homeland from the attacks of terrorists and rogue nations.

Case is about 6 year old
The document the lawyer found showed that in the 50's the major petrol and chemcical companies met to decide what to do about governmental attempts to control polution and they colluded to stall the process. The lawyer whose name I can't recall found the conspiracy document in a basement of the chemical company involved in the law suit. Since the story surfaced about 6 years ago it has diappeared from the airways just as any unpopular story disappears like the murder of the family in NJ by two Muslim men which was attributed to a drug deal. Why did the sensational story of the murder of a family totally disappear from the news when Scott Peterson took up two years of news time? I just care about these things because I don't want to breathe or drink poison. My town hid the fact for ten years that there was an unsafe amount of radium in the new well they dug and then when they no longer could hide it they sent out notices to everyone that there was too much radium in the water so I am not talking about the abstract I am talking about real life and my heros are not lawyers they are, Rembrandt, Leonardo, Picasso, Mattisse, Cezanne, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Mellville, Joseph Conrad, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Brahams, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Theoloneus Monk, Muddy Waters, Howl'in wolf, Chic Corea, Jackson Pollock, Ahille Gorky, but no politicians, no generals, and no lawyers.

hrist
I'm no conservative, but I'm in total agreement. I find it strange, in fact, that caring about the environment has become politicized, and why people seem less interested in what is really happening than they are winning some kind of ideological claptrap.

If people were really interested in the science, believers and non-believers of GW would occur in both liberal and conservative constituencies.

Living the way you live definitely makes sense, everyone can do it in terms of their own limitations. I can't walk for 60 minutes these days, but I can build a garden of drought-tolerant plants, conserve heat, drive less, etc.

Dog
You wrote: 'Fine with me, I'd be in a blue city-state and if you decided it would be best for your red city-state neighbors to get by without social security, SSI, health care, free clinics, That wouldn't affect me at all. '


I do believe in Social Security, and I find that what I have worked for and have had removed from may paycheck as Social Security, has been viciously dipped into.
Can my Red State give me a choice where to invest my own money for my own retirement and have no government touch it and give it to someone else because they don't feel like being a productive person in our society even if they are healthy and able bodied? Yes. Let me make my choice at this point.

Working people have healthcare too. No need to drain the taxpayers to support every illegal who doesn't. I know when I lost my job for a couple months, I had to pay Cobra for my health insurance until I had another job which provided my healthcare. I would've saved myself a lot of money if I were illegal. Heck, I'd make an anchor baby. Maybe 4!

Clinics are fine. But it's not a free ride. Liberals want too many because they all feel entitlement because of some social affliction. Phooey.

And about Christmas....Pa-Leeze. You can get any card anywhere about any religion, anyone or anything you want. Go to the store, go online, it's all there. But, where I live, where I grew up, all the fun and festiveness was deleted out.

No kids can sing Xmas Carols, do arts and crafts and make a Xmas Tree, nope...That has been removed from the schools. As a Jewish girl I LOVED that time of my life. It's stripped away and gone from these children in my area. It's a cancer which is spreading fast. Christmas Trees are being replaced with "My Two Daddies."

To also answer whether my redland would contain all colors and creeds and special interests of the rainbow---my answer is of course. Including Mexicans, as long as they were LEGAL!!!!!!!!!
The myth has always been that conservatives hate gays, blacks, you name it---we're labeled haters.
That my friend is the biggest load-o-crap.

Conservatives do not hate, they just don't mollycoddle. Why does anyone deserve anymore than
anyone else just because of skin, what country they originated from, and what they prefer to have sex with? It's ridiculous!!! This is the land of opportunity, and with every law, every medium and every resource this country has, there is absolutely no excuse not to be what you want to be---the only thing preventing people from their life choices and monetary needs is themselves. Period. It takes hard work. For all of us. Not every white Christian male is rich, trust me...ever check out mobile homes and see who lives there???

In closing to quote you: "The blind old deaf lady who has to sell groceries at your local store may be there because she wants to, but what happens to her when she is too old to work at all, or has a stroke, or is otherwise disabled? In your sublime red-country where nobody has to be responsible for anybody else, you can just have her euthanized and incinerated by another red-country capitalist who has found a way to make a living"

First, she'd probably beat you over the head with her cane. Second once she does become incapable of doing her job and falls ill, there's something called Insurance that the grocery store has where she can get long time disability and life insurance to take care of her needs, medicare also, and social security. The beauty of it is....it's hers because she worked it, she earned it. She is a champion.


Rodval
What are you talking about? During what years were we so well off because there were no federal entitlements, and everybody was taking care of the vulnerable out of the goodness of their hearts?

Why don't you actually talk to somebody who lived during the years that there were no worker's compensation benefits, and losing a leg or an arm on the job meant that you were just out of luck. Why don't you talk to somebody who came of age during the depression? Or somebody who had a relative locked up in straightjackets and nakepits for most of their lives because it was cheaper to put the mentally ill on ice?

I thought conservatives prided themselves on being realists. Get real, buddy, I've seen examples of Christian love on these posts all over TH. What compassionate conservatives would perhaps settle for is helping the unfortunate who could pass a politically-approved test. I have seen conservatives on this blog tell those who disagree to swallow poison, run their car over a cliff, or just die. Are those the conservatives we can all count on?

In a geopolitically divided country, you could serve the poor out of your pockets if you like. That should work. That is, provided the poor say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays and are not gay, liberal, Mexican, disabled, Arab-American, or black.

Global Warming?
The contrails from jet aircraft acually reflect back into space some of the sunlight and spare us some of the global warming.

There are no contrails or particle polution at the poles and that is why The polar areas are affected more.

In the three days after 9/11/01 all civilian aicraft were grounded and the result was significaltly warmer days and cooler nights, world wide.

Why pay any attention to thouands of the climate scientists or Michael Crichton? Was Al Gores book an " inconvient lie"?

The threat of global warming should not a political issue!

Scientific Projections and Predictions
I recently witnessed a traditionalist conservative site a study of the UN. I thought for sure that the liberal he was interviewing would call him out. I thought the liberal would say that the conservative only sited UN reports when they suited his argument. The liberal would've been right in this regard, but he also would've revealed himself in this counterpoint. I'm sure it rankled and disarmed this liberal that a conservative should site the UN, and that threw him off his game, but isn't this what all liberals do? Don't they all seek science that backs up their agenda? What happens to the scientific reports that state that global warming is an effect caused by the Sun? What happens to scientific reports that state that Mars is experiencing global warming? We all know that the female liberal from the weather channel stated that all global warming dissenters in meterology should be fired immediately. We all know that AlGore claimed that balanced reporting on global warming is biased. We all know this, yet some of us continue to listen to these predictions and projections.

Rilaly
Yes, and we all know that the scientists who work at the NCAR and other federal Research Agencies have been complaining for at least 6 years now that the administration has continually changed and edited their research papers to make it appear that the findings on Climate changes appear to be uncertain or non-existent. 1,600 Atmospheric Scientists who work for the government agencies signed a petition that affirmed the interference of the Administration to politicize their conclusions and/or results. Examples of edited papers have been put out for everyone who is interested to see. Scientists who have worked at these agencies for many years say that this kind of interference and dissembling is unprecedented and was never a factor in previous administrations.

So to say that liberals seek science to back up their agenda is to ignore the fact that the republicans in Washington don't just seek it, they change it to suit their agendas.

Dog
I restate my premise another way:
Libs have no monopoly on alruism. In fact they lag behind conservatives. You start with a fallacy. When I challenge your fallacy you start shrieking.
You state things about me that you could not possibly know.
Let's just take your "snakepit" exaqmple. The so called "snakepits" had nothing to do with money. The psychotic were treated with barbaric methods when I was in medical school more so when they had plenty of money. I was there and I saw it. We had literally a score of people locked up receiving electro shock therapy (EST) and it was obvious they had money paying their bills and THAT ultimately kept them there. When money ran out they were released.
And now I am faced with you telling me about how they were mistreated because they were poor.
You are wrong. Your example is poorly chosen.
I am really glad you picked mental illness for your point. I know quite a bit about its' past. I remember the movie "The Snake Pit" very well. I went to medical school to be a psychiatrist and changed my mind.

Dog:
"In a geopolitically divided country, you could serve the poor out of your pockets if you like. That should work. That is, provided the poor say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays and are not gay, liberal, Mexican, disabled, Arab-American, or black."

I think you just proved my point. You don't know whether my mother was any of the above. You state as fact that as a conservative I wouldn't help those classes. I may even be one for all you know.
I only addressed you directly because I saw that Shells did and I respect some of his previous posts.
I was wrong.
You are a product of non-questioning acceptance of lib mantras. You did not witness the economics of the "snakepits" and you are wrong about conservatives being niggardly or racists.
You have fit the sterotype that I have of a liberal. Mantras. Talking points.
I quit.

Leave it to the gummint
Kimberly, why, oh why must every solution to a problem come from the federal government? Just what we need, more gov't intrusion into our lives, as if there isn't an overabundance now. If we continue down that road, sooner rather than later, the gov't will control our lives from cradle to grave. We will work and all our monies will go to the gummint and then be doled back out to us as entitlements. Decisions will be taken out of our hands. Everything will be goodness and light, carefree we will be.
This is what I surmise liberals like yourself want, with people such as yourself in charge.
Not my idea of an ideal world, thank you very much.
Taproot - I love my country, it's my government I'm afraid of.

Hrist
You ask a reasonable question. The problem is that you make a couple of faulty assumptions in your analysis.

Assumption 1: Choice vs Mandate - If the "global warming" contoversy was about nothing more than bubble headed celebrities encouraging us to use flourescent bulbs, I would have no problem with it, regardless of the quality of the science behind their theories, the track record of previous chicken little warnings or their own hypocritical failure to adopt the lifestyle changes they demand of us. You are welcome to use bulbs, insulate your house and walk more for whatever reason you choose. Unfortunately, the warministas do not stop at recommendation. They seek to put us under the control of global socialist organizations and bind us to agreements that would cost trillions of dollars and cripple our economy.

Assumption 2: AGW = Environmentalism - As a previous poster noted, CO2 emmissions are NOT pollutants. However, the left and their media allies have done a bang up job of obscuring this fact from the general population. The truth is that our air and water quality have improved steadily for the past three decades. (despite 5 Republican Presidential terms "at war" with the environment) The best route to improving the environment is free market capitalism; only wealthy societies can afford it.

Assumption 3: AGW and energy independence are connected - even if we adopted Kyoto, and even if it were successful in achieving its projected result of slowing warming by 0.7 degrees over the next 3 decades at the cost of trillions, it would do nothing to make us energy independent. If the left were really interested in energy independence, they would cease blocking nuclear power, clean coal, domestic drilling, wind power visible to the Cape Cod Orca, etc.

Assumption 4: New energy technology will be developed by the government - Governments have a phenomenally poor record of picking and choosing new technologies and bringing them to market. There are no externalities involved - any person or company that can develop an inexpensive and reliable alternative to oil will reap huge rewards. We don't know if that will be shale oil, hydrogen, fusion, fuel cells, or any of a dozen other possibilities. The solution may not have even been thought of yet. But you can rest assured it will come from the market, not government.

What is AlGore going to do
about the SUV drivers on Mars?
The Martian ice caps are receding as well.
Solar output variability methinks.

shells
my point was this

this author and other conservatives want to accuse liberals having morals they don't approve of, yet,
everytime we turn around there is another so-called "family values" republican doing something immoral.

when i find a liberal or dem who does something immoral my religious beliefs force me to stop supporting that person.

not conservatives it seems,
every republican presidential candidate but one has been divorced while the three leading dem candidates, (say what you will about their politics) has been married to the same person their entire life.

you don't find that strange and disconcerting at best?


ko

just as there are pro-choice conservatives and gay republicans the liberal party is broad and deep. what conservatives have a tendancy to do is paint all liberals with the broad brush of extremism.
i could do the same with conservatives but try to be more rational than that.
i mean does david duke represent all republicans.
does pat robertson represent all christian conservatives.
does ted haggard represent all evangelicals.

of course not, so then why do conservatives take the most extreme liberals and assume all liberals are the same.

every day on this board there are so called respected columnists who go out of their way to demonize ALL LIBERALS as if the 50-75 million liberals in this country all act and think alike.

i mean every day in at least column and sometimes more liberals are attacked as a group as if they were the enemy. i mean is see more negative columns about liberals than i do our real enemies the radical islamists.
why is that.

Religiouslib
I like what you said and I'll quote:
when i find a liberal or dem who does something immoral my religious beliefs force me to stop supporting that person.


I respect that. I am not a religious person and I do not speak on behalf of my conservatives, but I also walk the same path.

See, for myself only, I like to boil things down to the nub. Too many dinner plates on the table makes it hard to lay the food out...Know what I mean?

I feel man should be allowed to be men. I'm a woman by the way, and I had to interject that because everyone thinks I'm a guy, LOL.

Back to my point: My opinion, all people are human. Down to the lowly bag lady with maladies up to the president of the free world, we all are human. We all feel desires, we all want different things, we all find comfort and joy in things that may be considered evil to others.

When I look at my party, if I see a true crime commited, I am deeply saddened, and I move on. The republican and the paige (sp?) boy....I was very upset. I do not support a person like that, but I still uphold the ideals I look to within my party of conservatives. Mind you, not for the fact that republican had homosexuals tendencies, I could care less. Or that he was a hypocrite. For me, it was because he was stalking a boy. If you read me before, you know I am so anti child predators that I can literally see blood if anyone defends a person like that.

However, humans can error. Politicians, all of them regardless of party, have a personna they veil themselves with. All of them.

What I do find though, on the MSM, is that most liberal "oopsies" are pardon and only 5 minute news, whereas if a republican has done the equivilant, it is beaten over like a dead horse.
The republicans, depnding what they have done, will be removed or resign. Liberals get re-elected. It's ok...It's not my vote. I just don't understand.

I elect a politician based on a few basic simple ideals I feel are important to me and the quality of my life and my country:

1. Will they keep my taxes low?
2. Will they protect my daily life here and the citizens in the US from any random acts of terrorism?
3. Will they promote ways of keeping our country prosperous and motivate our people to be prosperous?
4. Will they protect our children from predators and what are their plans to enforce strictor laws and penalities?
5. Will they enforce strictor penalties on criminals?

Those are my basic needs. This is why I vote conservative because I feel only they have those interests at heart.

HOWEVER: And please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel conservatives have lost their edge. I find them getting more liberal everyday, and this is bothersome. I find them placating to democrats because of the harrassment of the Leftists and the MSM. I don't find any republican running for president to my liking because of it. I would like Newt to run, or Tancredo, but people don't know him very well because he isn't a household name.

As far as liberals getting attacked on these forums, honestly, you know how to throw an ice ball....You have. Liberals come on these forums mostly to argue and to say pithy and horrendous things. Most liberals here try to provoke, and they do, and hence, the slings and arrows ensue.

Even with my family, who are all extremist leftists, and know their only daughter as a conservative disappoints them greatly. Dinner conversations, family get-togethers, no matter where we reunite because I only see them once a year...They forget I am their daughter, their sister, or their cousin, and they proceed to bring up politics and they attack me verbally. I never once attacked back. I just would shake my head and repeat, "Let's not talk about politics, not a good idea..." and yet they can't stop themselves. They have called me, their daughter, their sister, their cousin, a Puke, an Idiot, a Nazi.....
Needless to say, I have saved a lot on my phone bill because I cannot talk to them any longer. My parents believe the WTC was blown up not by planes, but by planted bombs from Bush. My sister believes Christians are planning to take control of the country and deport everyone who is not straight, white or Christian.

Because I do not nod my head to them in submission, to them, I am scumb. Their daughter, their sister, their cousin. So, perhaps you can understand that maybe some conservatives have experienced what I have, maybe not so much, but with friends or co-workers. You can get a little unnerved. And on a platform as this one, we're all anonomyous, and it's easier to confront those people we have no feelings for when we feel attacked.

Sorry to blather. I needed to.




Religious Lib,
I despise libs for what they stand for as a party. I know many libs who are nice, decent enough people but I don't understand why they support a party whose ideals include: Support/promotion of abortion, homosexuality, sexual freedom/deviancy, high taxation, Socialism/Communism, immorality, God-haters, illegal immigration, affirmative action, being victims, kow-towing to our enemies, going around the will of the people via a hand picked judiciary, etc. etc. etc. Sorry if you don't like that, but we're sick and tired of libs affecting our freedoms by lying, cheating and underhandedness.

To Dog
I'm pretty old so let me try to answer your question "does anybody remember the world before entitlements". Yes, I do. Before the Social Security Act was passed in 1935 it was typical for older people to move in with their married children because seniors couldn't afford to maintain a separate household. Young people often had to defer marriage for years or even decades because they had to support their parents or to pay for Mama's operation. Many (of any age) who needed operations never got them anyway because they couldn't afford them so they limped around crippled or in pain or unable to see properly, forever, and we saw people on the street with uncorrected harelips and club feet. I am impressed with the talk talked by conservatives who oppose entitlements, but I have never known a single one who refused an entitlement when he could get it---instead, the common attitude is "I'm going to get mine---I'm entitled". For instance, I recall a neighbor who complained non-stop about people on welfare, but when she lost her job she chose to stay at home and receive unemployment benefits for nine months before taking another job (no problem finding one if she'd wanted to as she was an easily-employed bookkeeper) because, she said, she needed a vacation. I wonder how many of the older posters to this board have refused Social Security and Medicare? Or---at any age---who have turned down unemployment or workmen's compensation benefits?

To CT
I see that you have listed affirmative action as one of things you hate. Take a look at the list of townhall.com columnists. Some of them are black. Do you honestly think they would be featured here if not for affirmative action over the past few decades? Do you think they could have gone to the colleges and universities of their choice? Being old enough to remember racial segregation, I assure you that since the 1960's black students have had a much better chance at higher education than they had before civil rights laws and affirmative action opened doors to them. And, having achieved that education, they now have a fighting chance of getting a job other than as janitor. In a world of equal opportunity, they can even become conservatives and write for townhall.

Lily
As you see, I have had conversations with Dog, and I would like to respond to your post on entitlements as a conservative.

I did lose my job for a few months. I paid Cobra for my healthcare. I was entitled to obtain un-employment too, which I investigated, since I had the time on my hands...

They make it quite easy, you know. You don;t even have to visit an office, you can just apply right on-line. They didn't ask many major questions either. It was all too easy, which in some aspects is good for those who really needed it. Also bad, for those who can click "Yes I have tried to look for work" and never have.

My friends kept encouraging me to take un-employment. They said "It's your money anyway, you've been taxed every paycheck...take back what is yours!"

I received my 1st check, and honestly, I felt kind of creepy. I was newly divorced, my water heater went on the fritz, so did my furnace, so did my garage, I had Cobra to deal with and no income...and yet I still felt creepy.I cannot explain why.

So I took my wedding ring and I sold it. It was mine, I coulsn't wear it any longer and althoug hit was beautiful and original and I truly loved it, I felt better selling my ring than taking a hand out.

I cancelled my un-employment and I paid them back the $350 they gave to me.

I'm just one story. I'm not trying to be righteous here, just telling you about what happened with me.

ct
just exactly where do you get your information?
it is simply the same rhetoric that conservatives have been using for 20 years and some of it is just lies and myths.

name one democrat or liberals who claims to be a communist. now you can say you THINK they are but if they really were wouldn't they be proud to say so.

please quote me the liberal or dem party platform that says they are anti-God, for immorality and deviancy. are the liberals you know for those things.
if not, then why do you think all liberals think that way.
as far as a hand-picked judiciary, come on, the supreme court and most federal courts are conservative leaning. there are exceptions no doubt but also take into account that by the end of bushs second term, republican presidents had picked the federal judges in 12 of the last 20 years so who gets the blame for those appointments.

anyway, your litany of what liberals stand for is simply mythology created by the biased conservative media

shells
thank you for your heartfelt response.
i am sorry your family is so hostile, please believe me when is say that is not typical of most liberals.

i share your revulsion at child predators.

my point stands though, why is there almost a column a day discussing those horrible liberals.and although i do acknowledge that there are liberal posters who say hateful things, they are not as prevalent as the liberal haters.

lilly
"Take a look at the list of townhall.com columnists. Some of them are black. Do you honestly think they would be featured here if not for affirmative action over the past few decades?"

YES!

Religiouslib
Thank you for your kind thoughts.

As far as your closing statement, there are numerous sites for liberal forums, and trust me, TownHall looks like DisneyLand compared to those others.

TownHall is a conservative forum, I know of no others. So, that's why you do see column that do report solely of liberal goings-on and not in a favorable light. That's what this forum is for which is why you find many people who dislike liberals. Go to a bakery and you'll tend to find people who like sweets, it's the same concept. But really, check out the liberal sites like Moveon.org and see what it would be like in my shoes to respond there. It wouldn'r be pretty.

That's why I don't go there, not even to provoke or to discuss. I prefer an open discussion, but then again, based on my personal experiences, I prefer also to be among fellow conservatives who give me hope and pause, validating I am not the only one who thinks as I do.

Shells
I wanted to say about your post
March, 12, 2007 10:55 PM
specifically and your other posts in general.

You write with a free flowing style that is very interesting to read. I enjoy reading your posts even when they are quite long. I usually skip through long posts.
About your 5 points I was very impressed that you put low taxes first. I have always said that the real sure-fire way to protect our freedoms from government interference was to take away the politician's freedom to spend so much money. The best way to do that is to lower tax revenues until they only have enough to spend on your other 4 points.
Excellent points from an obvious common sense mentality, milady. Thank you.

Rodval
Hi there, I hope it's not too late for you to back track posts of the day before, but I hope you do.

Thanks for your nice comments, truly. You've stated before kind words regarding my posts, but I never had an opportunity to respond in kind to you because I was usually in a head lock with a liberal.

I'm glad you caught my 5 points, and really, I think most conservatives think the way I do. Most liberals believe we only wish to vote republican to push gays back in the closet, impose a Christian belief system across the US and forefiet the existance of other religions, and anything else evil and cavemanish you can think of. All of course are ridiculous and untrue.

I doubt my 5 basic points ever came across to other liberalsm because truly in essence is what we all want, in my opinion.

I know I get sometimes blathery in my posts, but I speak from the heart and experience and not from googling and linking Leftist propaganda, as you have seen. Yes, if I find a long winded post of so called "facts" from a Leftists blog, I sort of skim over to the next, LOL. Of course, they'd accuse us of being close minded, but we'll keep that our dirty little secret.

But I honestly try not to have a debate with a liberal, because they tend to get quite personal. However, whatever pithy comment I may say, they wish to spar with me, and so I try to be as descriptive as possible with my points in laymans terms only. I doubt they read it too, I think they just look for the Buzz Words to fling the next set of hypothetical questions. But I play along. I hope one day a common ground will hit. I doubt it though.

But take care Rodval, and I'll be watching for your posts in the future. Ann should be writing a column soon, so I'll catch you in the mobs!

shells
i post at slate.com under "todays papers".
if you go there notice that first very few of the columnists attack conservatives per se, they will attack policies but not conservatives as a group.

there are 10-15 conservatives on the board out of 50 posters and although some are provicative and hence get negative responses, again, you will see alot more policy discussions than outright attacks.

now probably what will happen is you will go there and have a negative experience and then i would feel bad but i don't think so.

anyway i appreciated your civility and honesty and look forward to more discussion.

Ask the experts
Burt is not an expert on Global warming and neither is Pat Sajak. For the sake of argument neither is Al Gore or the Hollywood jetset.
There are however, experts in the field, I read your propganda, then asked them, they said Burt and Pat were mistaken. I trust their opinion.
I also asked an expert on 18th century Romainian poetry if Burt was right about his assertion that he is no expert in their field either, they agreed.
The larger point is what the heck can humans possibly do about it? Probably just make it worse. Personally, I like the winter tornadoes, as long as they keep hitting the bible belt, global warming is fine with me.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.