The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[Slipkid42]

I wasn't offended by anyone's post about unions. They are what they are. Many of the strongest unions & locals ARE run by corrupt greedy bastards. This isn't any different than any other sector of our population. Big Business, government, the health industry, the recording industry, even the Black Market all have greedy bastards of their own. Unions are certainly no more evil than anything else, in this every man for himself country that we live in. I don't think they're outdated; but I don't think they'll survive much longer, either. I can't see much good coming out of that. Even more of us will feel like powerless proletariat peons.

My theory on the 3rd party vote is this:

This election we may get 8%, next time maybe 11%. When the 2 other Bozos fuck up some more we may get 16% & so on & so forth. It doesn't matter which clown is runnin' (he won't win anyway) just vote for the one that will get the most 3rd party votes. With a little momentum, maybe a viable 3rd party candidate will emerge & steal a victory here & there. Maybe it will force these yo-yos in control to vote w/their hearts & for their constituents, instead of along party lines. Change has gotta start somewhere & this is the only real way I know to show my displeasure w/the way things are (short of startin' a revolution).

[Cole Younger]

I kind of compare this to the PETA folks' argument. I'm a hunter, so i'm obviously a meat eater. I don't just kill for the sake of killing. I eat what I kill. I may not agree with the PETA folks but I'm all for them having their say and I respect them for standing up for what they think is right. And while I'm not going to stop hunting or stop eating meat, I will certainly listen to what they have to say if it is not done so through a mouth that sits under the burning eyes of a zealot. The PETA people lose my attention completely when they start talking about wanting to give animals attorneys and making college sports teams, my Georgia Bulldogs for example, use robot mascots that look like animals rather than live animals themselves.

{/quote]

I like some of their ads, though.
http://dai.ly/dR7ikF

To me, hunting and fishing are completely different categories from factory farming. Consuming animals is one thing, torturing them is something else.

Yeah i kind of agree. I mean, i'm not gonna stop eating steak, pok chops, chicken etc. But I would be lying if I said that when I pass a truck with a load of cows packed in a trailer, that I don't feel a little something.

My wife went hunting with me once. She lets that be my thing while shopping and gardening are her things. I killed a deer the one time she went with me. She was kind of upset even though she's a Georgia country girl that grew up around hunting. But after a few minutes she said, "That was a much better death than what cows and chickens have. That deer died out here in the wild. Not in a slaughter house."

[GuitarManUpstairs]

Personally, i think it's way overblown. I think the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles and I don't think light bulbs etc. matter all that much. I also think the carbon emission stuff is overhyped.

While this is true about climate cycles the effects Man is having on the earth is pretty self-evident. It really can be boiled down to pretty basic chemistry/earth science. CO2 is a green house gas, meaning that per a given volume it can be shown that increasing the concentration of the gas within that volume will cause an increase in temperature. The earth's atmosphere is that finite volume and when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere that has been locked up and not part of the carbon cycle for many millions of years. The amount of atmospheric carbon injected into the atmosphere by humans over the past 200 years or so through industry, transportation and modern living has no doubt contributed significantly to the trend of warming and by extension, unpredictable and violent conditions. What one person or family unit does one way or another is pretty insignificant by itself but collectively if we don't change our attitudes about this and drastically reduce what we are unlocking and putting out there it will have dire effects in the end.

That said, I do have to somewhat agree with LJ about the hybrid vehicles, though the claim that creating one battery is as bad as driving x number of Suburbans for 100 years or whatever is somewhat dubious....however I'm not really sure how much you are saving because you still have to plug these things up and charge the batteries...where does that power come from????? Burning coal (at least around here). So combined with the additional batteries you'll need to produce, coal you'll have to burn to charge the batteries, and gasoline you will still have to burn for supplement, how much are we really saving in the end?

i realize that the scientific aspect of what you say is true. However, there is a lot of debate within the scientific community over the degree to which this is affecting us. I know it is some, but there is a big time agenda behind the climate hysteria of the last few years and I think the reason for that can be ascertained if we look to see who stands to benefit financially or otherwise from that.

I know I sound like a broken record but I'm all for real, common sense solutions. Not scams that enrich people or give the government power that is not there's in the name of a greater good.

I kind of compare this to the PETA folks' argument. I'm a hunter, so i'm obviously a meat eater. I don't just kill for the sake of killing. I eat what I kill. I may not agree with the PETA folks but I'm all for them having their say and I respect them for standing up for what they think is right. And while I'm not going to stop hunting or stop eating meat, I will certainly listen to what they have to say if it is not done so through a mouth that sits under the burning eyes of a zealot. The PETA people lose my attention completely when they start talking about wanting to give animals attorneys and making college sports teams, my Georgia Bulldogs for example, use robot mascots that look like animals rather than live animals themselves.

It's all about presentation. So I am happy to give the global warming folks a listen if they will come up with things that make sense rather than all of us painting our roof white, painting aspahlt white, and having the government tell us what we can set our AC on, and what kind of light bulbs we can use.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass so please don't take it that way. I'll listen to anybody who comes up with something reasonable. Right now the folks really pushing the global warming thing are just a little too wild eyed in their apporach for me to take them all that seriously.

I'm a hunter/fisher/omnivore as well and I totally get what you're say'in about PETA....it's like so many causes that begin as a noble pursuit but gets strung out and morph into extreme absurdities in the name of notoriety or pushing boundaries etc....That's a whole 'nother can'o worms. The issue of global warming has in some ways been handled in a similar fashion to a degree and there is little doubt that there are those out there looking to profit from it like anything else. The difference is there is a shit ton of scientific data (yes from academics) supporting these claims and there is a debate as to the degree to which or exactly what the repercussions will be, but there is little debate that the impact will affect us significantly. On the political flip side Republicans are in complete denial mode...and i ask you, who is profiting off that?

Mandates aside, I don't personally see what is unreasonable about following through on the examples you cite above. Its like when somebody asked Obama what everyday people could do to reduce their energy consumption and he cited making sure the air pressure in your car tires was not low. The "conservative" response was basically: "HaHaHa That's preposterous. I'll dive on flat tires if i want to mutha fucka!" When in reality reduced tire pressure is not only unsafe but it also significantly impacts fuel efficiency. Heating and cooling your home's air and water are the primary areas of energy consumption in homes so setting this to reasonable levels should make environmental and financial sense. And you know there's also something to lighter colors. My grandmother is 93 still lives by herself in a 175 year old white farmhouse with white shingle roof. No AC and not an ounce of insulation, save for 4 large oak trees surrounding the house. We live in Georgia and summers get hot as hell as you well know. I can go into that house in August and while its certainly not like being in the AC its a hell of a lot cooler than you might think. If my house and roof were white my guess is that the AC would kick in a lot less.

What I'm driving at is that these are real things that do conserve a significant amount of energy but they are laughed off as absurd when if implemented collectively (best done through positive reinforcement incentives rather than mandates.) it could have a real impact on our environment.

[beantownbubba]

Many of the strongest unions & locals ARE run by corrupt greedy bastards. This isn't any different than any other sector of our population. Big Business, government, the health industry, the recording industry, even the Black Market all have greedy bastards of their own. Unions are certainly no more evil than anything else, in this every man for himself country that we live in.

I gotta disagree w/ you here, slip. You don't see the American Medical Association infiltrated by the Mafia. You don't see American Bar Association officials being arrested for fraud, embezzlement, etc etc, at least not on a regular basis (of course there are bad apples everywhere to some extent but the scale of crime in unions is off the charts). You don't see the leadership of organizations like that confused about what's best for their members and anything less than focused on doing what's best for their members as they perceive it (obviously there's always room to disagree on what's best). The institutionalization of fucking the membership by unions and the acceptance of same by union members is just not a good thing and is not inevitable. And to the extent such shenanigans hasten the end of unions, I agree w/ you that's a bad thing, so we all have at least a little stake in this unfortunate situation.

I can't tell u how much grief I get from my family members for regularly voting 3d party (or write in). Not voting is unacceptable and there is no way to register dissatisfaction, so I'm with you all the way on that one. Hey, wanna form a party? Or have a party?

[Flood18]

Gasoline is more explosive then hydrogen, it's called chemistry.

I usually try and stay out of the bickering, and focus on the more interesting debates taking place but...for clarification, gasoline is more flammable than hydrogen it is not more explosive. Flammability is a function of concentration while explosivity is a function of time. The above statement is simply not true.

[Erdlivz]

Because CLINT said so.

[LuthierJustin]

Gasoline is more explosive then hydrogen, it's called chemistry.

I usually try and stay out of the bickering, and focus on the more interesting debates taking place but...for clarification, gasoline is more flammable than hydrogen it is not more explosive. Flammability is a function of concentration while explosivity is a function of time. The above statement is simply not true.

Ok, but you will agree hydrogen is safer than gasoline as a fuel for vehicles

[sactochris]

Gasoline is more explosive then hydrogen, it's called chemistry.

I usually try and stay out of the bickering, and focus on the more interesting debates taking place but...for clarification, gasoline is more flammable than hydrogen it is not more explosive. Flammability is a function of concentration while explosivity is a function of time. The above statement is simply not true.

Ok, but you will agree hydrogen is safer than gasoline as a fuel for vehicles

Define safe?

[LuthierJustin]

You drive a gas powered car now right? You could read the page I posted about it, if you want to learn...

[Cole Younger]

However, I think the global warming hysteria was much less about the environment and more about making money for certain people.

Personally, i think it's way overblown. I think the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles and I don't think light bulbs etc. matter all that much. I also think the carbon emission stuff is overhyped.


And this is just a request because I'm just another meember here, but can we cool it with the name calling and tone down the sarcasm? This was and is a lot more enjoyable without it.

How do you know? Seriously. I have a hard time wading through the bullshit and the science for that matter so if u can explain it or direct me to sources that can, I'd appreciate it. That's not at all sarcastic. I find the global warming thing to be enormously frustrating and difficult to understand, and I'd like to understand.


Count me as just another member who'd like to see less name calling and sarcasm.

I don't know anything for sure bubba. I'm just saying that there is enough dissent and enough argument to the contrary within the scientific community that the gospel of global warming looks to not be the slam dunk that some would have us believe at least. There also seems to be a lot of pains taken to skew the issue. I'm not a scientist, I'm a welder. But I read a lot of things and try to make up my own mind and there is enough conflicting info from credible people to make me doubt the global warming zealots. It also makes me wonder why information has been hidden and why when someone offers up a different opinion, they are shouted down and told that it has all been settled. I don't know man, here's some food for thought below.

For the fella talking about the Georgia farm house that his grandmother lives in, both sets of my grandparents live in houses like that and it didn't have nearly so much to do with the fact that they were painted white. Houses were built totally different in those days. In the South houses had very high ceilings and big rooms with big windows. They were built that way because heat rises and that kind of building got very good cross ventilation. But both sets of my grandparents have long since installed AC and love it. It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html



http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/ ... rming-over

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... g-alarmism

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/ ... ISTS/51531
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/t ... s-growing/

[LuthierJustin]

http://www.40fires.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Hydrogen%20Safety%20-%205.%20Gasoline%20Vs.%20Hydrogen
Safer

[Cole Younger]

Because CLINT said so.

[Cole Younger]

Because CLINT said so.

I'm with Clint. I don't care either. But one thing at a time. I'm discussing global warming right now. I'll work my way around to discussing gay marriage at some point, I'm sure. Wait a second... I mean no!!

[GuitarManUpstairs]

It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.

I never said it was the government's place to make that call. In fact I'm pretty sure i went out of my way to say that they shouldn't mandate it but incentivize the practice.
40 pages in I should have know better than to get involved in this freak'in thread.

I'll leave you with this though....why's the inside of a cooler almost always white? Food for thought on why the color thing might have a little something to do with thermodynamics. Done.

[Cole Younger]

It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.

I never said it was the government's place to make that call. In fact I'm pretty sure i went out of my way to say that they shouldn't mandate it but incentivize the practice.
40 pages in I should have know better than to get involved in this freak'in thread.

I'll leave you with this though....why's the inside of a cooler almost always white? Food for thought on why the color thing might have a little something to do with thermodynamics. Done.

[Cole Younger]

It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.

I never said it was the government's place to make that call. In fact I'm pretty sure i went out of my way to say that they shouldn't mandate it but incentivize the practice.
40 pages in I should have know better than to get involved in this freak'in thread.

I'll leave you with this though....why's the inside of a cooler almost always white? Food for thought on why the color thing might have a little something to do with thermodynamics. Done.

I have no idea. But since it never sees the light of day it doesn't seem like it make much differnce what color the inside is. But that may be exactly right.

I don't know why you're getting agravated and frsutrated. We're just talking. There is no reason in the world that two grown people simply disagreeing should be a problem or warrant sarcasm. I wasn't rude to you was I?

[Cole Younger]

I have no idea. But since it never sees the light of day it doesn't seem like it would make much differnce what color the inside is. But that may be exactly right.

I don't know why you're getting agravated and frsutrated. We're just talking. There is no reason in the world that two grown people simply disagreeing should be a problem or warrant sarcasm. I wasn't rude to you was I? Come on back if you want to and we'll talk some more. I came to this thread expecting people to disagree with me.

[GuitarManUpstairs]

It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.

I never said it was the government's place to make that call. In fact I'm pretty sure i went out of my way to say that they shouldn't mandate it but incentivize the practice.
40 pages in I should have know better than to get involved in this freak'in thread.

I'll leave you with this though....why's the inside of a cooler almost always white? Food for thought on why the color thing might have a little something to do with thermodynamics. Done.

I have no idea. But since it never sees the light of day it doesn't seem like it make much differnce what color the inside is. But that may be exactly right.

I don't know why you're getting agravated and frsutrated. We're just talking. I wasn't rude to you was I?

No you weren't rude....its just you seemingly missed the point to that whole thing i wrote. I wasn't stating that i agreed with government mandates to do this or that. My frustration is simply aimed at the dismissal of all these ideas as absurd and baseless when they clearly have some legitimacy and in a lot of cases could be helpful not only to the collective in terms of reducing energy expenditures but also personally.

[beantownbubba]

However, I think the global warming hysteria was much less about the environment and more about making money for certain people.

Personally, i think it's way overblown. I think the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles and I don't think light bulbs etc. matter all that much. I also think the carbon emission stuff is overhyped.


And this is just a request because I'm just another meember here, but can we cool it with the name calling and tone down the sarcasm? This was and is a lot more enjoyable without it.

How do you know? Seriously. I have a hard time wading through the bullshit and the science for that matter so if u can explain it or direct me to sources that can, I'd appreciate it. That's not at all sarcastic. I find the global warming thing to be enormously frustrating and difficult to understand, and I'd like to understand.


Count me as just another member who'd like to see less name calling and sarcasm.

I don't know anything for sure bubba. I'm just saying that there is enough dissent and enough argument to the contrary within the scientific community that the gospel of global warming looks to not be the slam dunk that some would have us believe at least. There also seems to be a lot of pains taken to skew the issue. I'm not a scientist, I'm a welder. But I read a lot of things and try to make up my own mind and there is enough conflicting info from credible people to make me doubt the global warming zealots. It also makes me wonder why information has been hidden and why when someone offers up a different opinion, they are shouted down and told that it has all been settled. I don't know man, here's some food for thought below.

For the fella talking about the Georgia farm house that his grandmother lives in, both sets of my grandparents live in houses like that and it didn't have nearly so much to do with the fact that they were painted white. Houses were built totally different in those days. In the South houses had very high ceilings and big rooms with big windows. They were built that way because heat rises and that kind of building got very good cross ventilation. But both sets of my grandparents have long since installed AC and love it. It is not the government's place to tell people what they can have their thermostat set on or what kind of car they can drive. I'm not slamming you, we just disagree there.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html



http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/ ... rming-over

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... g-alarmism

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/ ... ISTS/51531
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/t ... s-growing/

Thanks CY. A couple of those articles were helpful and a couple were not. The problem is that the helpful ones just leave me as or more confused than ever. LOL. That's my problem, I guess.

I'm not sure why you included the articles about increasingly cold weather. As I understand it, "global warming" has given way to "climate change" because predictions are of greater extremes in both directions. If so, the articles about increasingly bad winters would seem to support that. Or am I reading them wrong?

I did want to point out that the Washington Examiner column is just the kind of thing that gets in the way of understanding, on all sides of any issue. Essentially, Barone seems to be saying that climate change can't be true because if it is it will be too expensive and dislocating to fix. The usual vague generalities are slung and the usual bogeymen are trotted out to be slain. Not helpful.

On 2 of your more general points, I bat .500: I agree w/ you that it is VERY disturbing how the discussion of this issue seems to cut off or muffle dissenting views. That's a big part of my problem.

OTOH, you observe that a good question to ask is "who benefits?" and when I ask myself that, my answer is that the status quo benefits far more from doubts about climate change (and has more to lose if climate change theories are believed) than do the proponents of change. In a word, big oil, big power companies, big car companies, big capital equipment making companies, big real estate developers, big mining companies, big Wall St firms and big investors all have tons to lose if the climate change proponents are right and tons to gains if they're wrong (or if they can spread enough confusion to prevent any action from being taken). All the alternative energy companies in this country combined probably spend in a year what Exxon/Mobil alone makes in a week. That's not intended to be literal, but it might well be, which says a lot about the relative power and interests of the various parties. So I don't get where you're coming from on that one.

Another general point that I don't think you have specifically made but which I think is worth noting: To the extent that climate change science and politics is perceived as being led or endorsed by the UN, it has virtually zero credibility in the US, mostly for good reasons. This doesnt help get to the bottom of the real issues but it does explain some of the confusion.

[Cole Younger]

Bubba you're right that if a person accepts the climate change story rather than global warming, the cooling articles support that.

This isn't gonna help much but I can't say anything for sure. I jsut think alot of what was said early on about global warming was exagerrated and some of it was flat out false. I threw some of those in there to illustrate just how conflicting some of this stuff is partly, and partly just to show that while there are people swearing that we are rapidly getting hotter and that it will mean certain things for us and the only way to avoid it is to do A,B, and C, there are scientists saying that it will soon start getting colder.

The climate change thing really gave me some laughs when I first heard it. At first, there were people swearing by global warming speaking about it as it had all been settled and was now doctrine. They met some resistance as to the absolutes of the notion and then seemed to back peddle to climate change. I read an article by a guy pushing this idea that said, "The reson it is getting colder is because it is getting hotter." That is verbatum what he said. Then he preceeded to lambast two scientists that had the temerity to disagree with that. I can' help but laugh when thinking about it.

I'm really right back to where I started. Companies should not be free to pollute without impunity. We need to take care of the environment as best we can. But lets use some common sense. The EPA doesn't need to be empowered to the point that they are the green mafia. The government should not be given carte blanch in dealing with these issues. I'm not trying to suggest that thanyone here argued in favor of that but there are people out there who are.

I don't want people to just rape the environment. But I think there is a lot of conflicting science out there and enough of it that at best, global warming is not the impending doom and not the iron clad settled science that there seemed to be a big rush to cast it as.

If we get away from the extremes and talk common sense then we will get somewhere. Lets take care of the environment but letss not go crazy and to extremes trying to do so. I think some of the greene people hurt their cause with some of the less than above board tactics they've used in trying to get their agenda through.

[GuitarManUpstairs]

Somebody must'a been reading our conversation....this just popped up on CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/opinion/mann-climate-change-email-attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

BTW - It is average global temperatures that are on the rise and in turn it is leading to more extremes in many different placed in yes in some cases meaning colder winters for certain locations. It is a very nuanced subject and any part is easily picked out and smudged out of context.

[Slipkid42]

Many of the strongest unions & locals ARE run by corrupt greedy bastards. This isn't any different than any other sector of our population. Big Business, government, the health industry, the recording industry, even the Black Market all have greedy bastards of their own. Unions are certainly no more evil than anything else, in this every man for himself country that we live in.

I gotta disagree w/ you here, slip. You don't see the American Medical Association infiltrated by the Mafia. You don't see American Bar Association officials being arrested for fraud, embezzlement, etc etc, at least not on a regular basis (of course there are bad apples everywhere to some extent but the scale of crime in unions is off the charts). You don't see the leadership of organizations like that confused about what's best for their members and anything less than focused on doing what's best for their members as they perceive it (obviously there's always room to disagree on what's best). The institutionalization of fucking the membership by unions and the acceptance of same by union members is just not a good thing and is not inevitable. And to the extent such shenanigans hasten the end of unions, I agree w/ you that's a bad thing, so we all have at least a little stake in this unfortunate situation.

I can't tell u how much grief I get from my family members for regularly voting 3d party (or write in). Not voting is unacceptable and there is no way to register dissatisfaction, so I'm with you all the way on that one. Hey, wanna form a party? Or have a party?

Unions certainly have their share of Mafia infiltration, no doubt; but it's not nearly as wide spread as watching The Sopranos would have you believe. I feel most union leaders still do have their member's best interest at heart. Even in those unions where the leadership has been corrupted, the members are only accepting it because they need to stay employed. Plus, most of them/us are oblivious to the shady deals going on @ the management level anyway (until it is common knowledge to everyone else, that is). Unions are necessary in my opinion & breaking them because they provide a cover for Mafia operations is like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The Mafia sure ain't going outta business because their aren't any unions to hide behind. They'll figure out another way to control their jurisdictions. All that would be different, is that a whole lot more people would struggle to make ends meet.

I guess we differ on what 'crime' is. To me, my wallet getting raped every time I go to the doctor or need a lawyer is fuckin' criminal. These industries set their own going rate for their services & pretty much have us all by the balls, 'coz we rarely ever come see them unless we HAVE to see them. I understand that they have to pay for their costly educations (at least some of them do). Does that justify them making 5 & 10 times what the people who NEED their services can make. I don't think so. I know, doctors have exorbitant insurance premiums to pay. Those prolly wouldn't be so high, if our govt. hadn't awarded ludicrous settlements for frivolous claims, that's true. But the deeper question might be, is there any bigger legal racket than insurance? Please don't get me started on them. I feel there is as much or more underhanded wheeling & dealing going on in those 'professional' industries, as there is Mafia involvement w/unions. It's just that those professionals are smart enough to keep their shady practices legal. One of the flaws of capitalism is that the people we need the most, can charge us whatever they want to. Far too often it is more than we can afford. To me, that's criminal.

Oh, and let's call our 3rd party The Fix It Party. We'll be known as Fixers. We might sway a few undecided (notice I didn't say gullible) voters, if we have our own 'news' channel. That should be our first order of business.

[beantownbubba]

You're a slippery fellow, slip. Must be that rural sophistication You may not agree w/ me, but i agree w/ you. That's because you subtly changed the subject on me That's ok, I can deal.

No question that professional associations and the very existence of professions w/ barriers to entry raise prices, but there's also a lot more going on there, much of which puzzles me. For example: the highest rates charged by lawyers are charged to big companies by big firms. Those companies have plenty of market power, plenty of sophistication and often their own lawyers on staff, yet they willingly pay astronomical rates for mediocre work (so-called "bet the company" type cases are different). Why? Beats me, but it's not because of licensing regulations or the American Bar Association.

Edited once for rural sophistication

[beantownbubba]

Oh, and let's call our 3rd party The Fix It Party. We'll be known as Fixers. We might sway a few undecided (notice I didn't say gullible) voters, if we have our own 'news' channel. That should be our first order of business.

Can Never Going Back be our weather girl?

I'm kinda partial to the Network Party. 'cause we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!

[Slipkid42]

I am a slippery one, bubba. If ya don't watch out, I may just slip over there & set you free.
I am 2nd Generation, you know.

[Slipkid42]

Oh, and let's call our 3rd party The Fix It Party. We'll be known as Fixers. We might sway a few undecided (notice I didn't say gullible) voters, if we have our own 'news' channel. That should be our first order of business.

Can Never Going Back be our weather girl?

I'm kinda partial to the Network Party. 'cause we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!

Network Party will be too obvious. We have to let the people think they thought of the issues themselves.
I do love NGB as weather girl & littlemamma, too.
Clams can be our anchor (since he started this shit).

[Cole Younger]

"My frustration is simply aimed at the dismissal of all these ideas as absurd and baseless when they clearly have some legitimacy"

Fair enough but that is not what I did. And through my own reading on the subject, that is not clear.

[GuitarManUpstairs]

"My frustration is simply aimed at the dismissal of all these ideas as absurd and baseless when they clearly have some legitimacy"

Fair enough but that is not what I did. And through my own reading on the subject, that is not clear.

ok dude. let's just agree to agree on this:

"Companies should not be free to pollute without impunity. We need to take care of the environment as best we can. But lets use some common sense."

"

[Zip City]

"My frustration is simply aimed at the dismissal of all these ideas as absurd and baseless when they clearly have some legitimacy"

Fair enough but that is not what I did. And through my own reading on the subject, that is not clear.

ok dude. let's just agree to agree on this:

"Companies should not be free to pollute without impunity. We need to take care of the environment as best we can. But lets use some common sense."

"

And pollution laws HAVE to be set at the federal level. You can't contain pollution to your state's borders

[Zip City]

"In 1790, the very first Congress (which included 20 framers of the Constitution, in case Justices Thomas and Scalia are counting), enacted a law requiring shipowners to buy medical insurance for seamen. The law was signed by another notable framer: President George Washington. Congress followed this with a 1792 law requiring all able-bodied citizens to buy a firearm, and a 1798 law requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. Today, there are a host of affirmative federal duties to buy things. For example, federal law requires corporations to hire independent auditors, and requires unions to buy insurance bonds in case their officers engage in fraud. The list goes on."