If NoKorea's recent missle failures is any indication of the level of quality...this is a really bad business deal for Chavez.

Chavez is anti-Bush, not Anti-American. Your argument is cheap and base. Do some research before posting juvenile remarks.

Don't forget out favorite ex-President Jimmah Carter who thinks Hugo is the Boss.

War

I remember following the vote online. I was bored and couldn't sleep so I followed some live blogging place. When I finally went to sleep Chavez was down 17 points with 89% of the vote counted. When I got up he had won by 17 points. I couldn't help but laugh.

i just saw the tail end of Hardball (lucklily it gets repeated here in alaska)...and she is on it.

juts an FYI to anyone who wants to tune in!

i just saw the tail end of Hardball (lucklily it gets repeated here in alaska)...and she is on it.

juts an FYI to anyone who wants to tune in!

Why not say Cindy Sheehan has aligned herself with the pro-American, anti-Bush/anti-war crowd.

As you may recall Chavez offered help to the citizens of the United States during the Katrina tragedy.

Chavez is a blustering idiot.

Sheehan can be the same, some of the time. However, just because she is anti-Iraq War does not mean that she now has an "alliance" with N. Korea.

That is a stretch, even for somone as obsessed with Sheehan as you, Matt.

Are you still raving about her not getting her son a headstone for his grave?

When I finally went to sleep Chavez was down 17 points with 89% of the vote counted. When I got up he had won by 17 points.

Hmmmm sounds familiar. Ohio.

LOL. That is all I can do regarding her. She is a nutjob.

I cant get the link to open up....but here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

video link: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=1259f9ac-018f-480a-8ca7-ef330887b0c4&p=Source_Hardball&t=c1150&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/&fg=

Yes, remember that Chavez offered to help the victims of hurricane Katrina. Don't you think that maybe we have misjudged him? And maybe he has some insights about Saddam and Kim Jong Il that wee should listen to. Maybe they aren't such bad guys either.

Seriously, is this a story worthy of posting? This blog could spend all its time keeping us up to date on the various rogue-despot clown shows that positively surround us, but who cares?

Yes, I'm really asking.

Ashley, when was Spitball ever up 17 points in Ohio. You're a blithering retard, just like Canucky Obsessive.

Cindy Shriekhan is an anti-American psycho who's on a hunger strike "until the troops come home."

Soon, she'll be nothing but nose...

Nate: I guess if you dont care, you [u]really[/u] dont have to read or comment. LOL

Chavez gives N. Korea oil; we gave Saddam biological, chemical, and conventional weapons. three cheers for hypocrisy: USA, USA, USA!!!

Keefer,

Lets be nice, just because Ash and Canadian Observer like to sound foolish does not mean name calling is ok. Their posts expose their bias and foolishness all on their own.

As for Ms. Sheehan, she lost a son she never had a chance to fully connect with because of earlier problems, she will never be able to accept how and why he died. Given that, short of a visit from her son from beyond, she will never change.

I think we need to ignore that pathetic woman. She is clearly saying more and more outrageous things to get some media attention. This woman needs to be ignored.

So C.O....are you seriously saying that Hugo Chavez is good for the region and good for the United States? Are you seriously saying his "offer" to help those victims of Katrina somehow makes this so?

Please expand on this...thank you.

No ashwipe, it doesn't sound familiar. Kerry got beat handily in Ohio and was never up there by those numbers. Welcome to reality.

But hey, it's ok, blame your losses on a conspiracy again. Just make sure you say it loudly so all of America can see what complete losers you guys are every time you lose you bitch and whine about it. It's priceless.

Warrornation

I'm not saying you should make Chavez an honorary citizen. Just saying that during a national disaster he showed compasion toward the American people, that's all.

"I'm not saying you should make Chavez an honorary citizen. Just saying that during a national disaster he showed compasion toward the American people, that's all." Canadian Observer

Surely even you can't be so naive as to believe Chavez's offer was out of compassion.

What do you expect other nations to do when you have reckless radicals in charge of the most poweful army in the world?

They of course will attempt to counter the threat.

Add to this that the Bush Administration vocabulary does not include diplomacy and long passed are the days when America was respected as a moral country.

Other nations are going to pursue whatever they can to protect against the real threat to world peace which unfortunately Republican rule is the source.

Wade

Hugo Chavez is just a Castro-wannabe. I live in Louisiana and didn't see a dime of the promised "compassion" from Chavez. I also refuse buy anything from CITGO stations as those are Venezuelan-owned.

Ooooh...comPASSion!! What a guy!!

Yeah, Hugo figured out that he could score even more points with the neorads here in this country by appearing to "CARE" more than evil Bush for the poor miserables in New Orleans. Note the word "appearing". But appealing to emotions is always a good way to score with the Left.

What do you want to bet that when Chavez gets ousted, or killed, whichever come first given the volatile history of South American despots, it will come out that this benevolent supporter of the poor and downtrodden has stashed away billions of dollars? And the American Left will still love him, as they do Kofi Annan, oblivious to true corruption as long as it is committed by the politically correct.

Cindy is a big phony. She is clambering over her son's casket to get to the spotlight, uncaring of what mattered to HIM, and uncaring that if she were to get her way his death would be made irrelevant and insignificant. Much as Sadaam's "hunger strike" lasted through one lunch, I don't expect Cindy to lose much weight during this latest pathetic grab for the brass ring of more publicity and the illusion of fame.

Remember, this is the phony who claimed to be "camping out" in Crawford, but who was really living in a motel in town. Remember, this is the phony who made a big deal out of the "sacrifices" she was supposedly making to make her point, while her lefty supporters had big elaborate catering tents set up, and had all meals catered to the rabble. Remember, this is the phony who whined about just wanting to meet with the president, calling him a coward for "refusing to meet" with her, omitting the fact that he had already met with her---and that she had gushed over his kindness and attention after that meeting, before learning that she could get on TV if she would just act like it had never happened. Remember, this is the phony whose caravan of expensive air-conditioned buses cruised right past the hurricane-ravaged south on their way to Party Time in D.C., sparing not a minute, a dollar, or a volunteer to help out in an area just a few hours from their starting point.

And the thing is, no matter how much the MSM try to drum up some drama over this fake hunger strike, no one cares. Cindy bit the hand that feeds her when she went after Hillary, and is now sentenced to the looniest of the libs, far from anyone who matters.

"And the thing is, no matter how much the MSM try to drum up some drama over this fake hunger strike, no one cares."

Oh, the irony. Do yourself a favor Almi, and read your own post.

You are bordering on severe obsession when it comes to Sheehan. It is not healthy for you.

Now, focus your hatred on Al Gore and John Kerry, like the rest of your fellow neo-Cons.

Fox News is reporting that North Korea is possibly preparing to launch 3 to 4 more missiles.

Cindy Shriekhan sounds like a 14-year-old valley girl on acid.

kjstrouble, Cindy has made herself fair game in the political arena. She is a tool of the left, and will be treated as such.

so, maf53, just what is a "neo-con" anyway, you neo-dumbass?

Cindy Shenanigans is just a useful idiot.

Keebler:

Not opposed to "big government," chicken-hawk foreign policy, unilateral pre-emptive war, nation-building, etc ... you get the idea.

I know you're getting up there in age and all, but there's this wonderful thing out there called Google - give it a try some time.

And I can't really stand Sheehan either - but KJS is right: she won't be able to accept why her son died because he died for no just or real reason at all. All thanks to your idol.

[i]he showed compasion toward the American people, that's all[/i]

who cares if he "claimed" to help out NO. im sure plenty of people did, who are not favorable people. wonder how many pedophiles, rapists and other types of people helped out. should we give them a free pass too?

what a dumb excuse.

and on top of that....he is now in the process of making deals with north korea. i believe is compassion was a show of "look at me" rather then from the heart.

Every time this moonbat opens her mouth, she just shows how incredibly stupid she is. I can't see applying the word useful idiot to her, she is of no use.

From a MichaelMoore.com post signed by her;

"A few of the signs had the very pithy "Freedom Isn't Free." Well, I'm sorry, but the very definition of freedom is that it is free. Freedom is a birthright of every American and we have the Bill of Rights to prove it."

And how does she think we got freedom? Does she believe the Birtish just felt sorry of us and handed it to us?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=676

The decision to invade Irq and big government were made by the government as a whole. These policies flawed as they may be shuld not be blamed on one group, such as the neo conservatives. It over simplifies a ver complicated situation and is not helpful. Constructive solutions will need to be found. Hopefully Iraq can become a successful democracy that will be allied with the US.

The decision to invade Iraq and big government were made by the government as a whole. These policies flawed as they may be shuld not be blamed on one group, such as the neo conservatives. It over simplifies a very complicated situation and is not helpful. Constructive solutions will need to be found. Hopefully Iraq can become a successful democracy that will be allied with the US.

Ya gotta love the desperate neorad efforts to shore up their shaky position by merely redefining words.

Take "unilateral" for example. A decision backed by the United Nations in several resolutions, backed by both houses of Congress, and supported by many other nations who joined us in an international coalition to effect regime change in Iraq is hardly "unilateral"---unless you are using the Neorad Dictionary. You know, the one where Michael Moore's efforts are called "documentaries", Jane Fonda is a "patriot" and John Kerry is a "war hero".

When a proven draft dodger was president, war or military experience were not considered important qualifications for the job. Contmept for the military was considered a virute---probably the only time that word has ever been applied to that man. A few years later, a military man with a proven record as a skilled fighter pilot and defender of our country and a man who was not even eligible for the draft are branded with the hateful term "chicken hawk", which attributes cowardice to both of their situations. The first was fortunate, as was the country, that those unidentified aircraft he intercepted were not enemy planes coming to attack us---but he had no way of knowing that when he went out to intercept them. The second was a married man, a father, and a student, who was legally protected from the draft. Object to the law if you don't like it, but don't attack those who followed it.

And I don't waste my time on hatred. It is silly and useless. I recognize the stupidity of people like Sheehan, and those who support her, but spend very little time thinking of her. None, away from this blog. If it were not for the efforts of the neorads to portray her as a person of intelligence and significance, I would simply be vaguely aware of her as a sad, pathetic, disturbed person desperate for attention.

Like the other neorads clamoring for attention here, begging to be taken seriously, desperate to be thought of as significant, pleading to be considered part of something important.

The funny thing is the projection of the Left----they assume that because their lives are driven by irrational hatred, that emotion must also be the driving force for the rest of us. Nope. Didn't even hate Clinton---just thought he was a loser who couldn't keep his pecker parked and wanted to be a legend without carrying the weight. Intellectually, I thought he was a sub-mediocre president. Emotionally, he barely registered.

Obsession? That is marked by, among other things, a frantic effort to justify overwhelming and dominating emotion---in the case of the neorads vs Bush, it is marked by such energetic loathing that elaborate lies must constantly be invented to give this otherwise unworthy reaction some validity. The immense energy that goes into feeling this hatred, inventing reasons to feel it, devising elaborate lies and deceptions and conspiracies to try to give it some substance, are really kind of creepy. Sad, and creepy. But you're the ones who keep coming over to this blog, making sure that we know just how obsessed and demented you are in your dedication to the most negative and unproductive emotion known to man.

I find some of the posts on this blog to be really pathetic. Do you think Hugo Chavez would like to have missles lobbed over his country? Do you think Kim Yung Il would like to have missles lobbed over his country? How about lobbing missles over Canada? These sovereign countries tout rights, but are horrible hypocrites. Japan has had at least 7 missles fired over their country. Maybe you should show a little concern for Japan. They have every right to have their air space free of ICBMs. What about their sovereign rigts?
You can wrap yourself in hatred and prejudice against the President of the USA all you want. But when the day is done, I don't see any of you fighting terrorists in your backyard. I don't see any of you living under a dictatorship, starving, dying from firing squads, imprisoned, or being stoned for being stupid.

Maf, Sheehan's son actually believed in what he was doing. She will not accept that. As to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe it was right. If Saddam did not want to get treated like he was reconstituting his WMD program, he should not have created such a good set up and then refused the inspectors the access to prove it was a sham.

Almiranta,

So often you say what I want to so well it is nice to read. Keep posting for all of us.

Anti-American OR anti-Bush... you can't be both.

Fomenting war is easy. Tough talk is easy.

Nukular Armageddon can ONLY be avoided through brilliant diplomacy and intelligent statesmanship.

We're screwed.

"Nukular Armageddon can ONLY be avoided through brilliant diplomacy and intelligent statesmanship. We're screwed."- by: congressive

Congressive, of course we're screwed. Skynet cannot be stopped through diplomacy, intelligent or otherwise. The Terminator-my governor-already told us that Judgment Day is inevitable. Stock up on KI pills for the radiation and get out of L.A.

Seriously though, President Ronald Reagan did avoid nuclear Armageddon with the USSR through brilliant statemanship. Now, in 2006, Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative may save us and our allies from a North Korean nuclear missile. President Reagan, in Heaven and still defending the USA!!!
:)

Diplomacy only works when it is backed by a strong military and the willingness to use it!!!

How about a little more pro-Bush, pro-America, and pro-military support from Canada!

Perhaps there IS hope for Canada... if they can throw out that wimpy liberal government! Maybe there are still some REAL MEN (and women) in Canada after all!

New Canadian Leader To Rebuild Military

"TORONTO -- In a White House meeting today with Canada's first Conservative prime minister in 12 years, President Bush will find an ideological soul mate who has moved quickly to rebuild his country's long-neglected military and committed to keeping 2,300 troops in Afghanistan through 2009."

"...Canada has been eager to alert Americans to a more militaristic image. A smartly designed Web site (www.canadianally.com) -- promoted with ads in the D.C. Metro system and elsewhere -- bristles with photos of Canadian troops in action abroad."

"The United States has urged Ottawa to spend more money to rebuild a military that has been embarrassed by having to hitch rides or borrow equipment from coalition troops."

"Mr. Bush also can expect a major improvement in atmospherics after years of prickly relations with Liberal Party governments, whose members were accused at times of adopting anti-American positions to score political points."

AAR

Chavez IS anti-American -- he has been for years!

The liberal Democrats support his regime and provide him more money to support his leftist anti-American activities by blocking Conservative efforts to produce drill for and produce more of our own oil!

The liberal Democrats and their media icon Sheehan are a disgrace to America and our troops who fight for and give their lives for ours and the world's freedom!

AAR

First, you can be anti-Bush, but pro-American-just ask two thirds of Americans.

Second, how is it that America under Bush is facing a myriad of threats that are heretofore unprecedented? The conflict with North Korea has become more dangerous, with no clear diplomatic path within reach. Russia and China have and will continue to block any meaningful sanctions, just as they have with Iran, another country that poses a dangerous, complicated problem for America.
Iraq, which was dangerous but contained, now is chaotic and quickly going down the slippery slope to civil war, while eating up huge amounts of our resources, that are needed to respond to these other challenges. No end in sight there. Somalia, a failed state, where terrorism reigns free, is another threat that we have no response for.
Russia's Putin, who Bush claimed to have such a great relationship with, has thwarted America's interests at every turn, even going so far as to warn Saddam Hussein of our movements during the early days of the war.
Palestine, which was encouraged by the Bush foreign policy attaches to hold democratic elections, chose a terrorist organization as their ruling party.
Now we also have to deal with anti-capitalist countries in our own hemisphere- Venezuela and Bolivia, where populist leaders have taken power BECAUSE of their anti-American sentiments.
It must be rather obvious to many that we are failing miserably in our attempts world-wide to win hearts and minds.
Rather than attack the leaders and Cindy Sheehan-who doesn't represent the majority of the left-just the fringes-why not look at the root cause of the sentiments? How many enemies can we afford to have?

I had to deliver a horse to a client in northern Alberta the weekend after 9/11. From the border crossing at Sweetgrass all the way past Calgary, every billboard, every electronic sign, was filled with messages of love and support for the United States. We passed a long line of horseback riders who had quickly organized a pledge ride from Calgary to the border, to raise money for the families of those killed or injured in the attacks. They carried American and Candian flags and were accompanied by vans and cars of people who could not ride. We couldn't buy fuel or a sandwich or check into a motel without being hugged and tearfully assured of the love and support of our closest neighbor and ally.

When Bush was elected in 2000, a friend and business associate in Calgary said "You finally have a businessman in the White House instead of a politcian--maybe you can start to make some progress."

Canada, much like the U.S., is a great nation of great people. But the neorad element gained a foothold there, and their coasts became hotbeds of radicalism just as ours have. And they learned the same lessons we learned---that Libs are bad economists, bad militarists, and bad leaders. They learned that confiscating other people's property is not a hallmark of a truly free country, and they learned that spineless appeasement of enemies will NOT turn them away or buy protection from them.

And the panic of the northern neorads is funny to see. I notice that they are scurrying down here, at least electronically, to pester us with the silly notions that have been rejected up there. Sorry to disappoint you, guys----they don't make any sense here, either.

Thanks for the update and consistent good info, AAR.

Ya gotta love the desperate neorad efforts to shore up their shaky position by merely redefining words.

Did you look up the definition of the word "proof" yet, li'l Almy?

Almiranta,

Don't confuse empathy, with disgust for an illegal war of agression, outside of international law.

Care to explain how refusing to allow resolution 1441 to complete its mandate, and then invading a sovereign nation is legal--our congressional approval doesn't mean bupkis to the world.

By the way, never forget that our founding father's were labeled as radicals too.

Kim, do not be fooled into thinking that two thirds of Americans are "anti-Bush". I don't know if your comment reflects a leftist black/white, for/against dichotomy, or simply a misreading of poll numbers, but without knowing what the poll questions were, or the context of the questions, simple numbers are meaningless.

For example: I am a strong Bush supporter. I voted for him twice, and I think he is a strong, decent, honorable man, faced with impossible tasks and doing his best with them. I think he is smart and effective for the most part, and is making progress in some crucially important areas. I think he is laboring under the additional burden of a radical hate-driven fifth column within the country which has only one goal, to undermine and weaken his presidency, with no concern for corollary damage to the country. I am deeply and profoundly grateful that this is the man we chose to lead our country during what has turned out to be a very tumultuous time of great danger.

Having said all of that, if I were asked a simple yes-or-no question about whether or not I am happy with the President's performance in the past year or so, I would have to answer "no".

First, I think he is doing an absolutely terrible job of informing the American public about the reality of the war in Iraq---the successes, the victories, the progress we and the Iraqis are making. I think he's leaving the field to the anti-Bush propagandists, and leaving Americans with no other reference or source of information.

Second, while I think I understand the basis for his stance on illegal immigration, I think he is wrong.

But am I "anti-Bush"? No way. I have so much respect and admiration for who he is and what he has done, nothing could be farther from the truth. And I think that many millions of Americans, while maybe not as ardent in their support of the man, still think he is doing pretty darned well in a difficult and thankless job. So the actual questions asked are pretty important to know how to evaluate the responses.

Also, those who quote polls usually only take one answer, though the poll may consist of several questions. I, for example, might give a simple "no" to "Do you think the President has done a better job this year than he did last year?" or some similar question----but my answer to a later question would be that I would vote for him again, that overall I approve of his record, that I support what he is trying to do, or something similar.

And the biggest question of all, which is never asked, would be "Do you think President Bush has handled the problems facing this country since January 2001 better or worse than his election opponents would have?" Because even people who did not vote for Bush often think he turned out to be a better choice once we had to face the attacks and other problems that have come up since the first election. Maybe not perfect, maybe not ideal, maybe not even good---but still better than Gore or Kerry would have done. Adn our choice was never between Bush and perfection---it was between Bush and Gore, then Bush and Kerry.

Almiranta,

So often you say what I want to so well it is nice to read. Keep posting for all of us.

^^^^^^^^^^^
I have to agree with the above statement 100%

The eye says:
"By the way, never forget that our founding father's were labeled as radicals too."

Thank you thank you thank you---I was beginning to think that you neorads would never get that through your pointy little heads. Yes, terms do change, affiliations change, even definitions change.

You all are so fond of quoting things that identify Nazi fasicm as "conservative" when it was a relatively conservative movement in its time, in its place, as opposed to total socialism, though still of socialist origin. It had and has no relationship to the conservatism of American politics, which in turn is not exactly the same as the Conservative Party of Great Britain, for example. You;ve tried and tried and TRIED to link the administration of George W. Bush with Hitler and the Nazis merely by making a fraudulent connection based on the use of the word "conservative" when the meanings of the word vary widely from one era and government to another

In 1776, those trying to establish a Constitutional government in America WERE the radicals. Today those who try to retain the Constitution as the foundation of our governemnt are the conservatives. In the 1770's, those who were working so hard to ensure a nation based on the teachings of God and the absolute freedom to worship in freedom were the radicals---now they are the conservatives. During the Revolution, the radicals were the ones determined to limit the scope of the federal government and to keep control of most of government in the hands of the states---now it is the conservatives who are objecting to inserting the federal government into health care and education, among other areas they think should be under state rule.

I am so glad you realize that a political identification can and does change depending on the nation, the era, and the context.

Kim, I found the quote I was thinking of, which may help you understand the anti-Americanism of some around the world. It's a comment on the psychology of humanity, not on our President, as the author died in 1375.

"La grande benevolenza attira la grande malevolenza."

"Great benevolence always attracts great malevolence."

Another Italian proverb is:
"Why does he hate me so? I have never done anything for him."

All you have to do is look at the resentment of the so-called "Richest 1%" in the United States to see the corrosive effect of resentment for those who have more. Right here in this country we have people who hate and want to punish the productive and successful by demeaning them, denying their contributions, and confiscating their assets for redistribution. Can we be surprised to find similar attitudes abroad?

There are two basic attitudes toward those who have achieved more and gained more---to view them as role models and inspirations, proving to us that such achievements are possible and within our grasp, or to try bring them down to our level. Of the many ways of defining people, this is one of the most significant. When you know if a person's reaction to another's success is to try to learn from it or to try to destroy it or punish it, you will know a lot about that person. And you will probably know which party he belongs to.

Thank you, kjstrouble and AFWIFE---I get a lot of insults and grief here and it is nice to see that someone appreciates my efforts to stay the course. I talk with a lot of people who are frustrated with the constant onslaught of negativity and downright falsehoods spread by the Left, and I just try to distill their thoughts and feelings and pass them on, along with my own.

TEO: You write "disgust for an illegal war of aggression outside of international law." With all due respect, it is statements like this that explain why Democrats have continued to lose elections. I'm sure most of them do not feel this way but it is their refusal to distance themselves from such statements that has cost them elections. You could build a case that invading Iraq did not serve American national security interests. I can very easily build such a case.

Saddam was an active supporter of international terrorism. While there is no direct evidence that he participated in the 911 attacks, he did provide safe harbor to a variety of international terrorists groups including members of Al Qaeda. Saddam even provided safe harbor to a participant in the 1993 WTC bombing, Abdul Rahman Yassin. Clearly Saddam was the aggressor. He invaded two of his neighbors, he supported international terrorism, and he attempted to have former President George H.W. Bush assainated.

UN Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 and Iraq had agreed to the terms. By March of 2003 Saddan had yet to fully qualify. We may have been able to re work the sanctions. This is where international law comes into play. Saddam had used his oil weapon quite effectively. According to the ISG, he had mitigated much of the effects of the sanctions. It seesm unlikely international law was going to help us at this point. Too many people in the international community and probably even American business interests were in to deep with Saddam. In other words, they placed their economic interests ahead of American national security interests. It seems Saddam was trying to run out the clock on sanctions and was playing for time with many of the world's most powerful nations running interference. With that being said, it may have been possible to salvage the sanctions perhaps we could have offered some of Saddam's biggest supporters incentives of some kind to stop what they were doing but that is irrelevant now.

As for the notion of Iraq being a soverign nation, Iraq under Saddam was criminal gang. Such do not have soverign rights. To infer this upon them is to imply that they are morrally equivelant to nations such as Japan, Israel, and the US. Again, we could argue that removing the gangster did not serve US national security interests but to infer soverign rights on Saddam's Iraq is erroneous.

Our congressional approval may have meant something to the 30 countries who assisted us in whatever way they could and in whatever way their domestic political situations would allow them to. It is true that we did not get as big of a coalition as we would have liked to have had. Perhaps we could have done better. Ultimately the American people along with the coalition of the willing need to decide what is in their best interests. I don't trust elements within the UN who are in league with America's enemies to decide when we can and cannot act to defend ourselves. At the risk of belaboring the point, a good case can be made that the invasion of Iraq did not serve American national security interests.

Very respectfully, I would suggest the Democrats distance themselves from statements like the ones you wrote. I would suggest the following for "course corrections": 1.) If you think the war was a mistake and will never help American national security interests, suggest that we withdraw immediately as soon as our transport planes and ships can pull our people out. No delays. 2.) Come up with an alternative plan to the one put forth by the administration. The redoployment plan put forth as an alternative right now looks an awful lot like surrender. If you want to surrender, just say so. I suggest what I have before. Committ more troops to the situation and try to get security under control.

I hear outrage at American actions. I hear very little outrage from the media about the actions of suicide bombers who deliberately target civilians. These are the ones who are doing most of the killing. This is in contrast to the Americans who, for all of their flaws, are trying to bring liberty to an oppressed people. I'm not sure this action is consistent with American national security interests but it is what we are tying to do. On that note, I must say Iraq has made it farther on this democracy road than I ever thought they could!!

It seems to me that the terrorists and former regime elements have concluded that they cannot defeat the US military and they cannot halt the spread of democracy. The strategy they seem to have settled on is to try and make civilian blood run. As the meida covers this extensively, it wears down the will of the American people and our allies. All the while the media, whether they realize it or not, are being played by the terrorists. I'm not suggesting the media should not cover this. They simply need to provide the proper context and we need to realize what the enemy is up to.

"Chavez is anti-Bush, not Anti-American. Your argument is cheap and base. Do some research before posting juvenile remarks." Nick E

Nick don't believe everything you read on Kos and DU. Do your research from other places than leftist websites.

Chavez has made it extremely difficult for US businesses to compete in Venezuela, and I'm not just talking about oil companies. He now gives preference to companies and products from Europe. For example he insists that all medical devices have a CE Mark (from the Common Market), no longer recognizing the US FDA.

How do I know? We do business there and its easier to sell medical products, paid by the government, from our European offices than the same products from the US.

Not anti-american???? Get a clue!!!

Almiranta,
Who the heck are you? Your true identity I mean. And what do you do for profession? (I don't really mean to want you to give those away in a public forum such as this, so don't answer me.) I ask because I am SO impressed with your writings and thoughts and stances. You are certainly one of my favorite commenters in here. Like I said before, you are a giant amoungst the petty little sour leftists trolls that frequent here. Their thoughts, comprehension, arguments, and words, even combined, can't even shed a glimmer of light against you. You should talk to Matt and Mark and the others responsible for this site to contribute posts here on a regular basis. I would love to read them. I find that I agree with you if not 100% of the time then 99%. Or do you have your own site/blog? Have you written any books? Published articles or pieces or anything? Are you in radio? You are so insightful. Are you an author, writer, or professor(the rare and sane conservative kind) of some kind? You don't seem like an average commentor amidst us. At times I'm thinking that you must be an "insider"(whatever that means) that posts here under an alias name.

God bless you. You are one of the strongest, most intellectual, calmest(as opposed to me), most insightful, and most articulated allies on our side that the Right can ever wish for here in a forum like this. Do more. Talk more. Write more. I'm in your camp all the way.

Amiranta

I agree. A great story that sums it all up is Harrison Burgeron by Kurt Vonnegott. Society's attempt to "equalize" everyone by bringing the "achievers" down.

Short story, but wonderful....found here.

Almiranta,

Yes me too!, I'm with Repulican43VER, It is absolutely astounding the way you post!

I wish I had the gift of knowledge like you!

I have been reading your posts all along and was thinking to myself WOW!

Do you work for a journalist company?

or perhaps a news organization?

You do a REALLY GREAT JOB!!

Keep up the good work!!

Jeremiah

Y'all have me blushing....

I don't mind a short intro, as I am curious about a lot of you, too, and have been wondering if there is a way we could get some e-mails to each other without involving the loony libs.

Of which I can speak with some authority, as I was one, once upon a time. Not to get too specific about my age, but I was a Haight-Ashbury hippie chick (yes, of the female pursuasion) who also went to the University of Colorado, attended the SDS convention to see Bernadine Dohrn speak, and referred to my acid-rock drummer boyfriend as my 'old man'. In other words, my lefty credentials were impeccable.

I ranted and raved against Viet Nam, hated Nixon, hated Republicans, hated hated hated---I was a good little Liberal. But I was, as I refer to it now, an Unexamined Liberal. I never thought about what I said, and never really worried about whether the word "thought" could truly be applied to what rattled around in my brain. The thing is, being a Liberal was the short cut to the Higher Moral Ground. Merely being Against the right things made me morally superior, doncha see?

So, if I was a Democrat, and was AGAINST war, then Republicans must be, by default FOR war----and morally inferior. And so on. It was so easy. Not only did I never have to think for myself, it would actually have gotten in the way.

Then Clinton came along. I was also a good little feminist, and when he started getting caught with his pants down, I wondered how the feminists would handle it. When the "feminists" turned their backs on every single thing they had preached for so long, and became everything they had ever railed against, viciously attacking and slandering women who had already been victimized, I started to examine my politics. And I realized that I had let my political identity dictate my philosophy, when it should have been the other way around.

Mike Rosen's show, on KOA in Denver, taught me how to reason, and how to see through false arguments. Listening to him, I began to see the falsehoods and fallacies of Liberal arguments. It took a while to gin up the courage to actually become a (gasp!) REPUBLICAN and I still often say I am a conservative who votes Republican because they most closely represent what I want in government.

Now I am a high-altitude rancher in Colorado, getting ready to move to Wyoming, partly because too many Ashes have moved here and tried to make Colorado another San Francisco. I am an old-fashioned feminist, not a political one---I think that women can operate heavy equipment and drive big trucks and rassle calves and train horses and do all that fun stuff, and I do. But the political man-hating feminists turn me off. I've done some traveling, am a book junkie, and have lots of time to think, finding tractor work and horse hauling conducive to pondering. I'm married to an apolitical guy who tolerates my passion for politics but does not get into it, so this blog in particular is my only real way to debate. And your feedback is very very deeply appreciated.

Mark...would you mind if I posted a disposable e-mail address? I've been wanting to meet Kimberly and Warrior and AAR and others over the months, and now that Republican and Jeremiah have been so kind it might be fun to compare notes.

About Chavez - "he insists that all medical devices have a CE Mark (from the Common Market), no longer recognizing the US FDA."

The US FDA has gone to crap the last four years. You don't have to believe it, but if you want to know the progressive opinion of the FDA READ THIS - CLICK HERE

You obviously believe the FDA can do no wrong, but if this WAS your opinion, would you accept anything the FDA said as acceptible?

Be pigheaded. But you lose marketshare while you feel all self-righteous.

Almiranta,

I would never have guessed you were ever a leftist Haight-Ashbury hippie!

I'll reiterate the comment I made this past March: "I wish I was as fast and as prolific a writer as you!!!"

Regarding your comment about a disposable e-mail address (e.g. hotmail?). I don't know what Mark and Matt's policies are, but you can include an e-mail in your TypeKey profile. I would think you could also delete or change it later but I've never tried it and couldn't say with certainty.

From what I have seen, the "URL address box" (that shows when posting comments) will accept information other than a valid URL; although, the system will insert "http://" in front whatever is entered so that it "appears" in URL format. I have never tried it, other than in a "preview test", but I am guessing that whatever is entered in the URL box only appears for that one post.

Most leave the URL blank or enter their (or another) blog address. Others -- teen I think -- change it from time to time and link to different sites. (Perhaps they get some sort of "advertising fee".) I think some "occasional/infrequent posters" drop by and post a short comment -- only to leave their URL link as a means to get others to visit their web or blog site (free advertising).

Yours currently shows up as http://q/ (invalid) when I click on Almiranta.

If you look at one of Gozer posts, clicking on "Gozer" takes you to his website, and clicking on the TypeKey Profile Page (square box) beside his name gives his e-mail address and some other information.

(I don't recall for sure, but I think the Type Key Profile also accepts a URL which I would guess shows up every time the TypeKey profile is viewed.)

Hopefully this isn't too confusing; although, I don't know if it will be of any help.

AAR

Almiranta,

I checked the Type Key Profile update page. All I see is a box to "check" for e-mail. I did not see a separate block to enter a second e-mail address. If that's the case, the you probably would not want use the TypeKey profile since it would display your regular e-mail addresss and not your "disposable one".

AAR

Almiranta,

Still thinking ...

I haven't used TypeKey long enough to know all of their policies and how and where it is used.

However, I would think that, as long as you are using a valid e-mail address, you could change the e-mail address in your Type Key Account Preferences to the "disposable address" and "check" the box to permit it to be shown in your Type Key Profile when someone "clicks" on the "square icon." Later, when you no longer wish to use that e-mail address, you could (should be able to) change your Account Preferences back to your permanent e-mail address and "turn off" (uncheck) the option to display your address.

Another possibility: enter the "disposable" e-mail address in the "One-Line Bio" box as a comment; check the box next to it to select it for display; and "save changes". Later, when you no longer want that information displayed: edit your preferences again; delete the information from the "One-Line Bio" block; "uncheck" the box next to it; and "save changes".

I tried a test using the "One-Line Bio" and it seems to work. I'll leave the test information in my profile for a couple of days so you can click one the "square icon" beside AAR and see how it worked. (TypeKey hasn't removed my account... yet anyway!)

Any one know of any reason this would not work or reasons not to use it?

(The simple way would be to enter the "disposable address" in your post if Mark agrees, but I don't always do things the simple way. That takes all of the fun out of it!)

Now I'd better get back on topic before Mark reprimands me!

AAR

Almiranta- I respect your right to disagree with my post, and thanks for debating without name calling. I can see why you believe what you do, but I guess I can't agree with anything that you wrote.

Who was it who said "the measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members". Bush's base is "the haves and have mores". He believes in a permanent Republican majority, and believes in a permanent ownership society. He has done what his base put him in office to do-make large tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. The oil companies got to write our energy policy without the burden of dealing with environmentalists and also got huge tax breaks-which they hardly needed.Meanwhile, very little progress has been made on increasing the CAFE standards.

When the budget needed to be cut the "compassionate conservative" cut school lunches, federal money for school loans, medicaid and food stamps.

I personally am very comfortable, so I'm afraid your quote does not apply to me. I'm not angry that the rich are doing well, but I am angry about the inequality of a society that doesn't blink at a CEO retiring with 400 million regardless of performance, while the minimum wage hasn't gone up since 1993 or 94. To me, that's corporate greed-plain and simple.
When Ken Lay was finally arrested he was enjoying the high life with multiple vacation homes, and exotic travel. Meanwhile, he put 5,000 people out of work and the hard-earned pensions of countless others vanished.

I realize Clinton had a major flaw, but it did not affect his performance on the job. When he left office his approval rating was 61%. GW hasnt' come close to that since right after 9/11. More than half the country doesn't support the war in Iraq, and many conservatives dislike his lack of fiscal restraint and immigration policy.

I think his policy of "preemptive strikes" may have looked good on paper, but has proven to be a dismal failure in practice. Actions that were intended to stabilize a region have done just the opposite, which may be why he has lately reverted to the use of diplomacy rather than force when presented with a threat. I heard today on the news that the policy of preemption is dead on arrival.

Almiranta.
ROFLLLLLLLLLL. It was SDS, that gave your age group away! Those were days we thought we had changed the world!I was active in the civil rights and anti - war protests. Did Chicago in 68, with plenty of haze around, if you know what I mean! Your posting brought back some crazy times when we really thought we were doing something, and how we really do change.
I like you changed, just a little earlier… It seems that when I was younger and liberal, I was always looking for a cause. By 72 I had become Conservative and found what I was looking for. The worthiness of our Nation

kritter, thanks for a civil response. Like you, I am not in agreement, but at least it is dialogue.

The thing is, I simply cannot accept your assertions. Yes, a culture IS judged on how it treats its weakest members. But the Republicans start with the truly weakest, the unborn. I think that's going to be a big hurdle for the Libs, especially as new medical breakthroughs have debunked so many of the old pro-abortion standbys, such as the fetus not being able to feel pain, or just being an indistinct lump of cells or "tissue".

Tax cuts should be across the board. First, to reduce taxes on only some and not on others is discriminatory and inherently unfair. Second, to reduce taxes only on the lower income earners among us will not do anything to stimulate the economy. Studies done by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. have all shown the same thing---that to have an effect on the economy, tax savings have to extend to the higher tax levels. To put it the most simply: If you save $100 on your taxes, you will probably only pay down your Master Card on a purchase you have already made. But if you save $50,000 you may hire another employee, or buy a new car. It is a simple ratio---the more money kept out of the government hands, the more money goes back into the economy. You have to make sure that the amount of money not paid in taxes is sufficient to stimulate economic activity. Anything below that amount is merely pandering to the economically ignorant, and trying to buy votes from the lower tax brackets.

Thirdly, there is something inherently wrong with punishing success. It may sound noble to decry the executive who profits in what seems to be an exorbitant manner, but for every one of those examples there are thousands of hard-working people with flourishing businesses they started, they own, they developed with their own capital and for which they risked their own money. It is an emotionally appealing but basically fraudulent argument to use the few over-compensated executives from huge companies to try to justify overtaxing the rest of successful Americans.

Saying that next year we will increase at a lower rate than we increased last year is NOT a "cut". It is still an increase. Only in LibLand is an increase a cut. Show me one single budget that is smaller than it has been. Just one.

Look at just this one sentence:
"He has done what his base put him in office to do-make large tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor."

First, you make the assertion that Bush was voted into office specifically to benefit the wealthy. There is absolutely nothing to support this claim. Millions upon millions of Americans saw the logic in across-the-board tax cuts, understanding the stifling effect of tax increases on the economy.

Second, NOTHING has been done, tax-wise, "at the expense of the middle class and the poor". It is precisely the "middle class and the poor" who end up benefitting the most from a vigorous economy. Rich people already owned houses---it is the poor and lower middle class who are now able to enter the Ownership Society. They are the ones who need the jobs now being created.

You cannot give one single example of how letting a person in the upper tenth percentile of income keep more of the money he earned has had a negative effect on anyone in a lower percentile.

On the surface, this argument may sound legitimate. But any examination at all shows that it depends on the illusion that the money the higher earner did not pay was somehow taken from the lower earner. And that is just silly. Both taxpayers merely keep more of what they earned, and the amount saved by one has no effect on the amount saved by the other.

You say:
"The oil companies got to write our energy policy without the burden of dealing with environmentalists and also got huge tax breaks-which they hardly needed"

I keep hearing this, but never with anything to back it up. The fact that both the President and the Vice President have oil industry backgrounds makes it very easy to make assertions like this, but I have never seen one thing to support them. You make the assertions---please support them.

On the other hand, we all seem to agree that as a nation we need to become less dependent on foreign oil. And we all understand that the best way to stimulate an industry is to give it a tax break. Look at the cities which offer tax incentives to attract new industry. So if we are consistent in striving for oil independence, we need our oil industry to be able and willing to do the exploration and the drilling to make that possible. You make a value judgment that oil companies "do not need" tax breaks, which you claim they get. Not liking an industry is not sufficient basis to decide what they do and do not "deserve".

I just spent some time in the Oil Patch of western Wyoming, and it is clear to me that someone, envirnmentalists or not, has been taking very good care of the country. I happen to know something about the industry in my part of the country, and I know a lot of details about what is required of drilling rigs, reclamation of disturbed land, setting up of pumps and wells and tank farms---you act as if the industry is running rampant, destroying the envrionment willy-nilly. It's not happening. Whether because of imposition of government regulations or the intelligence of letting the businesses involved have some say about what really works and what doesn't, all I know is that the Oil Patch of today is far cleaner, safer, and more environmentally sensitive than it used to be.

"....very little progress has been made on increasing the CAFE standards."
How much is "very little". By whose standards? Compared to what? What would you do differently? Why?
Sorry, this sounds like a psuedo-quote based on an Air America rant. "...very little progress had been made..." is classic weasel-wording. It admits that SOME progress has been made, but sneakily implies that it is not very much, without saying anything.

"I realize Clinton had a major flaw, but it did not affect his performance on the job."
It is a favorite vanity of the Left to pretend that Clinton had only one "major flaw". I just posted on another thread a list of several things which constituted VERY "major flaws" which were totally unrelated to his sexual addiction or predations, and which DID, very significantly, affect his performance on the job. Failing to retaliate for attacks on Americans and America significantly encouraged Bin Laden to not only continue attacking us but to up the ante, convinced that we were too cowardly to fight back. He made it possible for China to get the technology it needed to be able to target American cities with missles. He arranged to give nuclear technology to North Korea. He repeatedly violated the Constitution and abused the power of his office. There is a lengthy list of serious problems in the Clinton Administration. It was not just sex, it never was just sex. But claiming it was just sex makes it easy to dismiss any criticism of him or his presidency.

There are many who think this obsession with "approval rating" is silly. One reason Clinton had a high approval rating was that the Left did such an excellent job of convincing the country that the poor guy was being picked on by that nasty bully Ken Starr--I still know Libs who think that the "Republican Congress" was responsible for siccing Starr on Clinton, ignorant of the fact that the legislative branch does not tell the judicial branch what to do, and that it was Reno who kept adding to Starr's assignments. But "approval ratings" depend heavily on what the public is told, and on how the polls are phrased. And if popularity is the only criterion for the quality of a President's performance, we are all in a world of hurt. We might as well choose our next President from the finalists on American Idol.

One of the most reviled national leaders of his time was Winston Churchill. Another was Abraham Lincoln. The immediate perceptions of a populace are not always the best way to evaluate the successes of a leader.

The President always used diplomacy, but he was smart enough to know when it would not work. It is another Liberal diversion to claim that he has suddenly "reverted" to diplomacy but this is merely another falsehood.

You sound like you want to be correct in your thinking. You do not sound as resolutely determined to continue being wrong. You seem sincere. But you are also a prime example of the saying "garbage in, garbage out". Your sources are misleading you.

I promise you, if you abstain from Air America and the Lib blogs for just a month or so, and really examine information without first running it through the filter of whether or not it hurts or helps Bush, you will have a much better chance of really knowing things, and not just thinking you know them because someone you like told you they were true.

Another big step would be to get over the Lib simple-minded insistence on immediate, simple, complete, Utopian success as measured by socialist goals. If you have ever tried what is, by comparison, a fairly simple project---buiiding or remodeling a house, for example, or even taking a trip---you know that plans go awry or fail to predict problems which arise later, that people being people fail to meet expectations or be at all predictable, that materials don't arrive on time or at all or are different than what you ordered, and so on. To think that anyone could possibly enter into anything as complex and constantly changing as a war with a clearly defined plan which he was able to follow at every moment is simply silly.

As is demanding perfection, demanding the right to be The One to define perfection, and then to attack anything short of that as being based on malice, malevolence, or corruption.

Can't get the profile page to open, but have created almiranta4bush@yahoo.com

Kritter, you made very polite and obviously sincere arguments, and I am happy to engage in civil discussion with you, or anyone---as long as facts are considered significant.

Your first paragraph of complaints against Bush is a word-for-word Leftist litany of Bush-bashing. If you are really a truth seeker, and not just a flag-carrier for the neorads, I will be happy to discuss those points with you.

Look at your first sentences about Bush:
"Bush's base is "the haves and have mores". He believes in a permanent Republican majority, and believes in a permanent ownership society. "
............
Upon reflection, I am sure that you can see the fallacies in these two statements. I know that they are verbatim from Ranty Rhodes but they are simply not true.
Bush's base is Middle America. If you look at campaign contributions, you will see that the vast majority of the contributions to Bush's campaign were in amounts of $45.00 or less, but there were hundreds of thousands of them, while the Dem contributions were very dominated by huge contributions from the very rich.
If Bush "believes in a permanent Republican majority..." that would be no different than you or your fellow Dems believing in a "permanent Democratic majority". That is what each party strives for. What is the big deal about this? Who joins or works for or represents a party they do not want to win? I simply fail to see a sin or a crime in thinking your own party is the best one to govern.
The difference should be in what each party can bring to the table, to support its desire to be in charge. The Dems have failed to convince the nation that their plan was better. That is mostly because their "plan" consisted of WE HATE BUSH...not exactly a coherent outline of economic or political goals. It worked, to a point----election results showed that anywhere from 50 to 70 per cent of those voting for Kerry were not actually voting FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush.
What, exactly IS a "permanent ownership society"? It sounds ominous till you take another look and realize it doesn't mean a thing. The only "Ownership Society" I have heard mentioned in the one that is rapidly developing, wherein people are finally able to own their own homes. As a direct result of the booming economy, and its stable foundation in legitimate growth and not a hollow dot-com bubble, an Ownership Society IS developing, and one would hope it would be "permanent". I don't get your point. I don't see why this would be a bad thing. Hisotry has shown us that ownership of a home is the first step to economic stability. What is the argument against it? I have a feeling this is a Ranty Rhodes type of throwaway line, which sounds so good when you hear it on the radio, and sounds so condemning when said in that scornful sneer of hers, but which actually means absolutely nothing.

You say: "He has done what his base put him in office to do-make large tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor." Here, again, you stray into the regurgitation of demagoguery. First is the claim that those who elected Bush did so for only one reason, to benefit the wealthy. However, demographics indicate that Bush was elected by people who are, for the most part, middle class, and who simply have a better grasp of economics than the Left and understand the stifling effects of tax hikes. Second is the well-debunked claim that the tax cuts were/are "... at the expense of the middle class and the poor."
Think about that for a moment. If my tax cut is $50,000, and my neighbor's is $50.00, how much of my savings came out of his pocket? How would that work, anyway? I got to KEEP more of what I EARNED---the government did not GIVE me anything, it just took less. And he got to keep a proportional amount of what HE earned. He was never entitled to what I earned. I never took a penny away from him.

On the other hand, a sensible tax cut, based on sound economic prinicples, can and does stimulate the economy. And who benefits? We all do. Possibly that is what rankles the class-warfare proponents. The fact that the "upper classes" make more money more than cancels out the fact that the middle and lower classes do, too. But to conservatives, there is an awareness that if ABCD, Inc., is making more money now, or rather keeping more of what it had been making all along, it can now expand, hire more people, and enlarge its market share. Yes, its executives and investors may make more money. But it hires new people, and more new employees are needed by the trucking firms hauling the product, and by the retailers selling it. More money is being spread around, and more taxes are being collected. To take away the profits of the "wealthy" would deprive the others of their jobs. To conservatives, that seems like a bad thing. But it appears to be the goal of Liberals.

It takes the willingness to step away from the dogma and demagoguery of the Left to be able to look at economics objectively.

This claim about oil companies being able to write our energy policies baffles me. Do you have an example? And do you have a reason for thinking this would automatically be a bad thing?

See, there is a school of thought that those who understand something should be the ones who help make decisions about it. It is convenient to leap to the conclusion that these people will act only in their self-interest, but until that is shown to be true by facts and evidence, I am not inclined to accept it just because it furthers a Leftist agenda.

Here is an example: I live in the mountains in the West, and daily I see the damage done by a very wrong-headed forest (mis)management policy. Oh, it sounded so good, so noble---The Forest Belongs To All Of Us No Private Business Should Profit From Our National Heritage It Should Be Natural And Wild And Free blah blah blah blah blah. The meanderings of the truly ignorant. Before we were here, when the forests were untouched by human influence, they built up, got overcrowded, became weak and vulnerable to various diseases and parasites, started to die, became dry and brittle, and then burned in huge waves of fire which wiped out all in their paths for humdreds of miles. ("All" including Bambi and Thumper and a bunch of bald eagles and spotted owls and old-growth timber, by the way.) It was the natural cycle. It would be a disaster today. We have to find ways to keep forests healthy, and the old cycle of health to disease to death to fire is just not acceptable any more.

The shortsighted view of forest non-management, based on a naive and unrealistic "naturalist" viewpoint, has resulted in hundreds of thosands of acres of dry, dead, pine trees---overcrowding has led to the invasion of the pine beetle. Just the other day I drove a back road that took me through about 30 miles of dead trees, dead to the horizon, dead to the ridge tops. It is not IF those trees will burn---it is WHEN. And the death and destruction of wildlife will be unspeakable, not to mention the tons of pollutants thrown into the atmosphere. Homes and livestock in the area may well burn as well, not to mention people who might not be able to get out in time, given the explosive nature of dead pines burning.

Timber companies should be allowed to participate in forest management policy. Why? Because they know what they are doing, that's why. If they had been consulted years ago, they would have been able to thin forests, making light and water available to younger, thriving, trees, and making it possible for them to stay strong and healthy. They know now what it would cost them to cut down the beetle-killed trees, what it would cost them to treat them to prevent the spread of the beetle larvae, how much money they could make by selling the gorgeous silvery-smoky wood that results from this kind of damage to the tree, and they could create a way to remove the worst of the dead tree stands before they literally explode into uncontrollable fire.

But the Left would come undone at the very THOUGHT of the industry having a say in the policy. And if PROFIT stuck its ugly, capitalistic, nose under the tent, the OUTRAGE would be unbelievable. No, the Left would like some university professor to write a paper on the "proper" uses of our forests, or some such twaddle.

Ditto for the petroluem industry. They actually KNOW what it takes to reclaim disturbed land, what works and what doesn't work, the best ways to handle certain problems. They KNOW which additives that are supposed to decrease pollution really add to it, or damage engines. They are not evil maniacal money-grubbing monsters----they live here, too, and they have a vested interest in keeping their industry acceptable to the masses.

This irrational demonization of industries or classes of people is a hallmark of demagoguery, and a red flag to those who recognize it. It should be a warning sign that the arguments to follow are not sound. But to so many of you, they are simply fact, gospel, unexamined, totally accepted.

This gullibility is the biggest factor in the lack of credibility of otherwise sincere people, as you seem to be.