Home > Uncategorized > Failure

Failure

Ok, this is just too good to pass up.

Go to Google. Type in “Failure” and see the first item that comes up. Any guesses? Anyone surprised?

I’ll be away from the ranch on Friday. Pastor Doug and Jack Greene will be in charge. I’m back on Monday.

Advertisements
  1. Craig
    August 24, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    Failure? This is a comedic prank prosecuted by those who harbor a deep dislike for this administration. Getting Google to list this first is not a terribly difficult thing to do. It’s the electronic equivalent of me slipping a “whoopee cushion” under your backside.

    Here is a true “failure” reality check:

    Sept 2 2004 United Nations Adopts resolution 1559. Lebanon is to establish it sovereignty over all of Lebanon territory and for non Lebanese militias to disband.

    July 25 2006 Four United Nations observers killed while Hezbollah uses the UN post as a “human Shield”

    Aug 10 2006 Bodies of Iranian soldiers found among hezbollah dead

    Aug 14 2006 Cease Fire declared

    Aug 14 2006 Six Hezbollah guerrillas killed while attacking Israeli positions (after cease fire) .

    Aug 15 2006 Hezbollah launches at least 10 Katyusha rockets into southern Lebanon at Israeli forces (after cease fire).

    Aug 16 2006 Hezbollah refuses to disarm (despite UN brokered cease fire agreement)

    Aug 16 2006 Lebanese government says they will not disarm Hezbollah (despite UN brokered cease fire agreement)

    Aug 17 2006 France sends in “symbolic” troop force with no intention to fight if necessary (history of the UNR1559 showed that French did nothing to resolve militia issues in Lebanon)

    Aug 19 2006 Israel intercepts delivery of weapons from Syria to Hezbollah forces (despite the specific cease fire agreement to disarm)

    Aug 20 2006 Front page headline of Santa Maria Times “Israel fails first real test of cease-fire” (referring to the commando attack on a Hezbollah arms transaction)

    Israel fails? It looks to me like everybody else but Israel failed. Lebanon failed to rid themselves of Hezbollah. The UN provided impotent Peacekeepers. The Iranians have soldiers involved in this mess. France tips their hand that French soldiers will be as impotent as the UN troops. Syria allows the transport of weapons across their border. Hezbollah violates the truce by attacking with guerrillas and rockets, and importing weapons when they should be disarming. Somehow, by some inexplicable reasoning, Israel is to blame? This is like blaming the jail warden for an invasion of a prisoner’s privacy when he catches him trying to escape. The logic of the world has been turned upside down in an Orwellian fashion.

    Craig
    Arroyo Grande

  2. Rich from Paso
    August 25, 2006 at 1:38 am

    Bush may not be on anyone’s “Top Ten Presdients of the 21st Century” list (even mine), but using the term “failure” in conjunction with this president is like “Jeopardy!”

    Here is your answer: It is the net result of liberals in the media and those of the Democratic Party efforts to undermine this administration and this President during a universally agreed upon time of war for our country.

    Question: What is a “Failure”?

  3. Bob from San Luis
    August 25, 2006 at 5:58 am

    What is a “Failure”? – “lack of success, the nonperformance of something, etc, etc” ; as in: the failure to find any WMDs in Iraq; the failure to secure the weapons dumps in Iraq; the failure to secure the borders of Iraq in a meaningful way to stem the flow of foreign “fighters”; the failure to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by not accomplishing what we said we would do- there is much more just in Iraq that the military leadership failed to achieve, but you should be able to get the point. Hurricane Katrina; failed to respond in an organized, efficient manner quickly that should have saved many lives; deficit spending- failed to retain the budget surplus that was left by previous administration and instead has spent (borrowed from foreign governments) more than all previous administrations combined! The reality here is that although someone has been clever enough to google bomb President Bush into the first hit for “failure” and “miserable failure”, other than the unprecedented tax cuts while waging a “war”, there is absolutely nothing that this administration has accomplished. That, Rich, is a failure. Yeah, I know someone will point out that Libya has “given up” its trying to obtain WMDs; that could have been achieved by diplomatic negotiations; oh, wait, this administration doesn’t believe in diplomacy, sorry, I forgot for a moment. Bush Administration diplomatic record; failure. There truly is not enough space here to list all of the “failures” of this presidency. Total, complete, utter failure would be a more accurate description of the Bush Administration.

  4. Rich from Paso
    August 25, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    That’s right, Bob. Let’s list other Bush failures: failure to allow another 9/11; failure to let 9/11 send the economy into the toilet; failure to allow Qaddaffi to continue to be a terrorist threat; failure to allow another 9/11; failure to allow terrorists freedom of movement around the world; failure to allow terroists to act with impunity; failure to allow Democrats to sell this country down the river in favor of terrorists so-called “civil right”.

    No, Bob, Bush has had plenty of successes your liberal brain won’t process.

  5. craig
    August 26, 2006 at 1:58 am

    Bob…we see things very differently. The only thing I agree with you on is the deficit spending. Needed (by the way) to deal with 9/11, Katrina AND the war on terrorism. My dissapointment with Bush is limited to his lack of attention to our border security. Every life lost in Iraq is tragic…but keep things in perspective. More lives are lost to drunken drivers in this country every year…more lives were lost PRACTICING for the D-Day invasion than all the American lives lost in the Iraqi conflict. Our military has performed extremely well, including the defeat of the Iraqi forces in a very short time. Helping to establish the Iraqi government won’t happen over night (how long do YOU think it should take). Completely securing the Iraqi borders is going to take the full support of the Iraqi people…and oh, by the way…I’d rather have those terrorists entering Iraq and facing our trained military than blowing something up in LA or NY. WMD’s?? What do you call the chemical weapons dump that they uncovered last month…or the centrifuges buried in peoples back yards (to enrich uranium). Did you expect a missile on a launch pad? The UN gave the Iraqi gov’t so much time, that he probably moved a majority of the materials to Syria. I realize that we are re-hashing old stuff…but I wanted readers to know that I believe that your perspective is wrong, and childish actions like “google bombing” Bush are typical liberal tactics.

  6. Bob from San Luis
    August 26, 2006 at 5:53 am

    Rich: I’m surprised you finally admit that 9/11 actually happened on Bush’s watch 🙂 . “Failure to let 9/11 send the economy into the toilet” – um, if you believe that our economy is doing well, you are paying attention to the indicators that the administration has manipulated to paint a better picture than actually exists. Unemployment? Simple, don’t count those who have dropped off of the unemployment rolls and only count those who are receiving benefits as being counted. Workers who no longer seek like-type employment are just not counted. Anyone who has even a single day of employment are not counted; the point here is that there is a lot of manipulation of data and statistics by this administration which previous administrations would have been happy to try and get away with, but most likely didn’t think they could pull it off. As for “terrorists civil rights”, what part of the Constitution do you not understand? President Clinton captured, arrested, prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned for life those responsible for the attack on the WTC of 1993, and that was accomplished without illegal wiretaps, stealth prisons and those arrested had their day in court in accordance with our Constitution. Bush? Where is Osama? How many men of middle eastern decent were detained, with no arrests made here in the US after 9/11? How many other violations has this administration been responsible for? Failure. Again.
    Craig: The deficit was not inevitable, even with 9/11, Katrina, and fighting terrorism. Remember the tax cuts of ’02, ’03, ’04, ’05, and this year? Tax cuts to the upper echelon and the unchecked spending in Iraq are the reasons for the deficit. Had Bush retained FEMA as a cabinet level position, appointed someone capable who could actually plan and respond, Katrina would not have had to be the utter failure by this administration that it was. As for Bush not controlling the borders, as long as the corporations who donate to Republicans want undocumented aliens coming here so they (the corporations) can have a controllable work force that they can underpay, not insure them, not report their earnings, etc., then Bush’s “lack of attention” to the borders is intentional, just as his violations of our Constitution is. Failure.

  7. Rich from Paso
    August 26, 2006 at 7:19 am

    Bob, you have lost all perspective on things. A real failure as a president was none other than Jimmy Carter. His only four years (thank God!!) as president saw stagflation, gas lines, a hollow military racked with drug abuse and low morale and even worse equipment, and our citizens held against thier will for 444 days in our embasy in Tehran. Mahmoud AhmindinaJihad was one of those that stormed our embasy, or so I have read. Carter is in part responsible for 9/11 with his totally wussy response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His response? Boycott the Moscow 1980 olympics and a grain embargo. What a total pussy. Defend Carter at your own peril.

    Now about Bush’s failures…

    In Iraq: Read this article on Iraq. yeah, it’s from Human Events, so what? It says that of the 362 deaths since Dec 05, 77% have occurred in two provinces, Al Anbar and Baghdad and 7 of the provinces have seen ZERO deaths. I was in Anbar province and it was a rough place then and continues to be a rough place. But with all three Kurd provinces and the four totally Shiite provinces having zero American deaths, that tells me that it is still the Sunni that have not given up the fight against us and the unity government, which says that we are probably doing a better job of winning hearts and minds than you or the polls will admit. As I have said before, the war continues so long as the enemy wishes to fight it.

    Failure to secure ammo dumps: Those dumps are everywhere with no fences to define the perimeter. And oh, by the way, they are the size of Atascadero. What would have been your master plan to secure them? That’s right, you’re a liberal, which absolves you of any responsibility to offer alternatives but does entitle you to bitch and moan at your own discretion. Another fact: Saddam and his sons moved most of the munitions that were used in 2003 and 2004 out into the communities and had them buried everywhere in preparation for this exact insurgency that is going on. The fact is that cache finds are much smaller now and most of the weapons are coming in from Syria and Iran.

    Failure to secure the border of Iraq: Maybe, but then again maybe we should be kicking the shit out of Iran and Syria for their hands in the Iraqi insurgency and their support of Hezbollah.

    What you don’t understand is that Clinton let Osama bin Laden go THREE F%^KING TIMES!! He was the orignal mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing. So FREAKING what that Clinton imprisoned the guys that planned it. He stopped WAAAAYYYYY short of getting the al Qaeda sonzabitches that financed it. At least Bush is taking hte fight to the bad guys. They are “bad guys” aren’t they, Bob? The Democratic Party has become the party of terrorist apologists preferring to err on the side of terrorist rights than your right to live. I hope for all our sakes that there never is another 9/11 because shitheads like the democrats and the ACLU that have stood in theis president’s honest attempt to defend this country risk another 9/11 every day.

    Your miniscule and repeatitive point about counting only those people how who stop looking for work (commonly called “bums”) should count against the unemployment numbers is bogus. You, Bob, can find any number of ways to spin the numbers but the fact is that thsi is a better economy than under Clinton because it survived 9/11 intact. Furthermore, tax cuts create freed up capital for investment into more jobs, which has been occurring. Federal tax receipts are 33% ahead of projects this year and every year since inactment because of tax cuts. It is a fact.

    I agree with Craig that Bush has spent more money than we think was necessary. Frankly, I would have vetoed about 12 bills before that stem cell research veto. No one ever said Bush was a Reagan Conservative. As for the border security issue… When Chris Dodd puts a provision in the Senate bill that mandates we MUST get Mexico’s permission before we erect any fences on OUR side of the border and Republicans let it in, I put the blame squarely on a politically and morally bankrupt Senate, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE!!! The only place where there is genuine concern for our soverignty is the Republican controlled House. I know people on the Operation Jump Start border security mission and they have told me that drug seizures are way up (3.2 million tons so far this year) teh number of illegals entering the country is way down. Why? Because we are securing our border and they are staying out, simple as that. Bush gets all of the credit for that since it took the Commander-in-Chief to deploy the Guard to the border. Ahnold, Napolitano and Richardson (and their predessors) could have sealed off the border themselves with the Guard at any time since, oh, say 1950, and sent the Feds the bill, but they didn’t. Clinton didn’t either. Bush did.

    Democrats employ more illegals than Republicans, Bob. That is a fact too.

  8. Rich from Paso
    August 26, 2006 at 7:20 am

    OPne last thing, Bob… I would like an answer to my schooling you on why Murtha is a senile old man with his stupid “redeployemnt plan” and the Long War brief I posted.

  9. rob in los osos
    August 27, 2006 at 5:31 am

    Some Bush failures –
    failure to address the real danger threatening everyone on this planet.
    Global Warming – its here, its real, and we are causing it. Bush is so out of touch with the science and the scientific community, they all laugh at him. He has done NOTHING to lessen our dependence on oil, removed us from the kyoto agreement, and made greenhouse gas emission restrictions all but non-existent. The states are having to do it themselves! Where is the leadership?

    failure to make anyone else in the world like and respect our country. Face it all you conservative kool-aid drinkers – we have lost all the respect and sympathy we had before and directly after 9/11. I frequently talk to people in such countries as Great Britain, Spain,Gemany, Ukraine and Serbia. They all ask the same thing – ‘What the hell is wrong with your country and its leaders?’ Face it people – the rest of the world distrusts and fears us – much the same way we used to view China.

    failure to keep a huge part of the republican voting base – whats the latest polls? 32% support – wow, thats great! When people like my dad, a staunch republican and conservative his whole life, tells me that he cant believe what a terrible job this president has done, that he actually fears and mistrusts our government, I’d call that a major failure.

    Oh yeah, but I know. All you neo-conservatives people can talk about is Clinton this, Carter that. Whatever. Watch your country flush itself down the tubes.
    At least some of us are trying to save it.

  10. Bob from San Luis
    August 27, 2006 at 7:06 am

    Rich: …”Defend Carter at your own peril”… Fact: James Earl Carter served seven years on active duty in the Navy, some of that on a nuclear sub. Perhaps he was “trigger shy”? Knowing full well what the military is capable of, he may have felt an overwhelming sense of responsibility in unleashing that force for anything but a large campaign; I do not know why he did what he did or didn’t do, but I think he must have struggled with those decisions quite a bit. The military that he inherited was already in bad shape, given that Nixon had pulled them out of Vietnam in a poorly planned and executed exit. Ford didn’t do much to rebuild the military during his remaining time either. The main problem with Carter other than his being “an outsider” from the D.C. clique was his belief that his faith could guide him without regard to his ability to work with Congress. Had Carter been able to be ruthless or uncaring, perhaps he could have been more effective. One point I remember is that George H.W. Bush had a very deep involvement with the CIA when they were in charge of the intelligence during the botched rescue attempt of the hostages, a very questionable situation given that he was the candidate for Vice-President. Remember that the hostages in Iran were released during Reagan’s inauguration. Coincidence? Not very likely.
    As for Iraq, I don’t believe that I ever claimed that I had any expertise. If things are going better than reported, good! I don’t believe for a second that any Democratic politician has ever called for the mission in Iraq to fail; if you can find any links to a Democrat leader calling for the defeat of our military, I would really like to see that. As for the weapons dumps, once again, if the troop levels had been what was suggested to keep the peace, prior to us invading, don’t you feel that the weapons dumps could have been secured? Maybe not all of them, but who knows how many soldiers would still be alive. Same for the borders.
    “Clinton didn’t blah blah blah…” ; well, at least you’re consistent. Even though those who carried out the plan to attack in ’93 were caught and sentenced, in your opinion, it is still Clinton’s fault that bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet? That is a stretch Rich, even for you.
    “Terrorist’s rights”; there is no such thing, there are only “Constitutionally protected rights”, period. The second you abandon rights for anyone, you chip away at the very foundation that our country was founded on. Yeah, I know, the Constitution is so pre-9/11; but it has survived a full blown civil war, invasions of our soil, two world wars, the cold war, and the Republicans want to suspend or destroy that document because of some whacko religious fundamentalists who have a “master-plan” to take over the world. Back to that in a moment.
    Do you not remember the graph that charted the unemployment figures from Bush 41 through Clinton? Here is one graph (about one page click down), and here is another (about 2/5s the way down). There is no way anyone with more than a few brain cells intact can claim our economy is better under George Bush than it was under Bill Clinton. Wow. Put down the koolaid, Rich.
    Now, back to your link on the “Long War”; very well written, and I agree with most of what is suggested. Don’t be shocked; my point is that President Bush is not the man for the job. Perhaps our southern border is finally getting some attention; but that alone does not make us safer. The Republican leadership will not fund what needs to be done to make our country secure; they would rather give Paris Hilton another tax cut. The L.W. “plan” of having allies help in the GWOT doesn’t seem to get much traction, and with people like John Bolton at the UN can you really blame them? Our current “plan” to fight terrorism is being couched along the lines of a “what’s in it for me” approach for the cronies and donors to the Republican party. No bid contracts, outsourcing, privatizing; it is all about business (profits, that is), not results that will protect us. Like I said, the “Long War” approach has a lot of merit, but President Bush is not up to the task. I do like that they recognize that Islam is not the problem, but the twisting of Islamic teachings that are used to foster the hatred against non-Muslims. If President Bush were serious about protecting the US and the world along the “Long War” approach, his party is in charge of Congress; what is stopping him?
    As for John Murtha suggesting Okinawa for redeployment, if he didn’t have any military service or experience, he would sound like many of the Republicans who spout off; but since he has the experience and record of service, he did come off sounding lame making that suggestion. Nothing he says though compares to how lame President Bush is at doing his job. “Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic…”… failure. Total. Pathetic. Failure. Period.

  11. Anonymous
    August 27, 2006 at 9:00 am

    People! Don’t fall for these kinds of “coincidences!”

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html

    Why do people fall for political crap that is generated obviously by people stacking the deck? Are you all just sheep?

    That a prank can lead to this kind of debate is fascinating. And telling.

    Grant Nakata
    Grover Beach

  12. Rich from Paso
    August 27, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Bob, talk about Kool-aid drinking!! I can’t believe that you still believe in the October Surprise urban legend. I suppose you believe thtat H.W. Bush rode in an SR-71 to fly t Thehran to arrange the hostages get released on Reagan’s inaugaration day? Pure liberal; insanity. The reason why they were released on the day Reagan was sworn in was a final thumb in the eye t Carter for allowing the Shah into our country. Carter was a shitty president. The fact that he was a nuclear sub tech is not lost on me, but he was a technician not a commander of anything. He didn’t command the sub, he just kept the motor running and the nuclear reactor from melting down. He may have been smart, but he never commanded anythign whyile in the Navy.

    There is no way any Republican would be stupid enough to make claims like Murtha, with or without military service. Murtha is just a senile old idiot that is trying to make hay out of the Iraq campaign to further his political ambitions; maybe to be Dave’s ’08 Veep candidate. He might even lose his seat in Pennsylvania over Iraq and his Abscam involvement.

    Look, the fact is that the Democrats don’t want to end the Iraq War because they need the issue to beat Bush up with. Typical Democrat tactic is to bitch about the situation instead of solving it. They could vote against the funding or filibuster the funds in a New York second, but they won’t. Why? They would expose themselves as “weak on defense and not supporting the troops”, which is true. The fact is that every time someone like Murtha or Feingold or Kerry puts forth a bill to pull us out of Iraq, not more than 3 congressmen and not more than 6 senators voted for it. The democrats are hypocrits and will talk talk talk, but take no action. Like I said, the Daily Kaos wing of the Democratic party could end the Irq War in a second and actually have something to run on, but the know the American people would savage them at the polls. They are politicians, afterall, making politcal calculations.

  13. Anonymous
    August 27, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    Posted by Marissa Mayer, Director of Consumer Web Products

    If you do a Google search on the word [failure] or the phrase [miserable failure], the top result is currently the White House’s official biographical page for President Bush. We’ve received some complaints recently from users who assume that this reflects a political bias on our part. I’d like to explain how these results come up in order to allay these concerns.

    Google’s search results are generated by computer programs that rank web pages in large part by examining the number and relative popularity of the sites that link to them. By using a practice called googlebombing, however, determined pranksters can occasionally produce odd results. In this case, a number of webmasters use the phrases [failure] and [miserable failure] to describe and link to President Bush’s website, thus pushing it to the top of searches for those phrases. We don’t condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we’re also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.

  14. Anonymous
    August 28, 2006 at 12:24 am

    The National Priorities Project has a real eye-opening website that calculates the cost of the War in Iraq and them compares it to what we could do with that money.

    As a resident of California, here’s what they say we could be doing:

    Taxpayers in California will pay $40.3 billion for the cost of war in Iraq. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

    * 16,733,296 People with Health Care or
    * 627,551 Elementary School Teachers or
    * 4,767,634 Head Start Places for Children or
    * 25,168,314 Children with Health Care or
    * 235,246 Affordable Housing Units or
    * 4,390 New Elementary Schools or
    * 7,685,109 Scholarships for University Students or
    * 616,017 Music and Arts Teachers or
    * 741,482 Public Safety Officers or
    * 117,140,845 Homes with Renewable Electricity or
    * 601,790 Port Container Inspectors

    Go check out what the trade-offs are for your state.

  15. Rich from Paso
    August 28, 2006 at 2:37 am

    The shame of it is that if it was so damn important to have all of those things listed, then why don’t you all demand then inspite of the cost of the War in Iraq? Hmmmm? There has not always been a War in Iraq, but, according to liberals, there has always been a need for everything you listed. More teachers, more healthcare, more daycare, more schools, on and on and on. But still you prefer to talk in relative terms instead of advancing an agenda to solve the problem once and for all. Again, it is just like I said before: liberals prefer to talk and complain about a problem than to take action to fix the problem. And don’t give me any mealy-mouthed
    “It’s Bush and the Neocons standing in our way to solving the problems”. Bullshit. Clinton was president for 8 years and every problem you cite had been a problem during his presidency too. He also had a democrat controlled Congress and nothing got done. So spare me the “but if not for the War in Iraq” nonsense.

    If these things you cite are the “answer” to our problems, then I say to you all: Get off your duffs and do something about it. You can start by having the funding to the Iraq War stopped.

  16. Bob from San Luis
    August 28, 2006 at 5:08 am

    Gee Rich, it’s so simple! Of course with a Republican majority controlling both Houses of Congress, it’s a snap! The majority decides what bills are moved or shelved, what the wording will be, they schedule the committee hearings, they decide if the bills move out of committee, and if they will be brought up for a vote. We here in the San Luis Obispo area have two Democratic Senators, and a Democratic Representative, so we should be able to bring up any bill for a vote pronto! All tongue and cheek aside, getting a bill together today is apparently quite a juggling act when all of the variables are considered. I for one would like to see bills brought up for a vote just on the merit of the bill that was presented, not because of riders or other factors that cloud a bills intention. De-funding the Iraqi debacle certainly would make a difference in the bottom line of the no-bid contractors, at least.
    As for Clinton achieving “the liberal agenda”; first, Clinton was not a liberal. The single one issues that could have been construed as being liberal was the national health care attempt that was shot down by the conservatives on both sides of the aisle. Second, Clinton had two years of a Democratic controlled Congress, in 1994 the Republicans took control of the house and Clinton was forced to lean to the right if he wanted to achieve any results. When I said Clinton was not a liberal I was referring to his push for passing NAFTA and his push for deregulating the media ownership rules. Those two items would not have been pursued by a true liberal.

  17. rob in los osos
    August 28, 2006 at 5:14 am

    yeah rich, thats brilliant

    why would we need any of those things? who wants better schools, more teachers, safer cities, healthy people? Not when we can have dead iraqi’s, dead gi’s, more fucking bombs, more fucking terrorists in that breeding ground-er-excuse me, place where we’re spreading freedom and democracy. I’ll ‘demand’ it right now and with pride. End this fucking invasion, impeach this son of a bitch president and indict his whole evil administration. Then we can start putting our priorities straight. Get off foreign oil, and start solving real problems like global warming. How’s that?

  18. Rich from Paso
    August 28, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    All I’m hearing from you Rob and Bob is more whining and complaining about what you all can’t do.

    Bob: For you all, it should be that simple. One senator could filibuster the appropriations bill and with 40 other democrats, could stop the funding of the Iraq War in it’s tracks, and it wouldn’t involve a single republican. But you have a problem, don’t you?: your side can’t get more than 10 democrats to agree to anything. You don’t need to offer a bill, either, Bob. Every year, Bush comes up with another “emergency spending” bill himself that the Republicans do all the wording and when it will come up, etc etc. Democrats don’t have to do any work but just vote no or filibuster. Either way your “tyranny of the majority” arguement doesn’t apply here; Democrats in the Senate could rule the day. Aas for Clinton: yeah he had only 2 years, but Newt and his boys got 8 of the 10 Contract for America provisions passed int he first 100 days of his Congress. Lack of will appears to be all what Democrats are lacking.

    Rob: Why so angry with all of the F’Bombs and whatnot? Of course we can use all of the new schools and teachers and healthcare, etc etc. All I was saying is stop usin the Iraq War as a crutch to not DO anything about those things. You have a Republican president that spends like a drunken sailor on shore leave. If ever there was a time to get those things done, now is it. I said that you all need to stop with the “because of the Iraq War, we can’t do anything” complaint because it doesn’t help push your agenda (you all do have an agenda beyond “stop the Iraq War” right?) and get those schools and healthcare and everything else. Hell, some courageous Democrat out there in the COngress should do exactly what the website suggests and propose a bill that woudl de-fund the war and spend, dollar for dollar, on those domestic issues. But to resort to f’n this and f’n that, really cheapens any intellectual weight your arguement has. Anger will not help your side end the war you hate so much; action will. A full-scale 1960’s style protest is the only thing that will end our involvement in Iraq. I don’t know why I’m telling you all this. You’re bright people and you have probably already thougth of that. Don’t get mad at me for pointing out the obvious to you all, okay?

  19. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 1:49 am

    Rich

    I’ll tell you why I’m so angry. Slightly long story but bear with me. I’ve been visiting my uncle. He’s a professor of planetary geology at the univ. of AZ. He’s got a book coming out about global warming. (I don’t know if you remember but you and I posted back and forth about this a while ago). What he has to say has scared the hell out of me. And the complete lack of acknowledgement of the science behind this catastrophe by this current administration is what has got me so f@#%ing angry. Can you give me any answers as to why this administration is so uninterested in this? The evidence is overwhelming, and I am so sick of the right wing gasbags like Rush and Glenn Beck spreading disinformation. It’s really sickening. I have kids who are going to inherit this mess and I want a government that at least tries to do something. They have us paralyzed with fear of an enemy that at best is an irritant when something that could potentially wipe out our whole species is disregarded. Care to explain?

  20. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 2:25 am

    The reason why Rush and Glen Beck don’t accept your uncle’s “science” (Don’t know him or what he sadi to you) is because history shows that it was hotter in the 1930’s (about 15 degrees hotter on average) and colder in the 1700’s. We are also talking about an average increase of ONE degree a year over 10 years. That means that there are years where the temp is down, then up then down to average that ONE degree. Furthermore, everyone that accepts the so-called science [again, don’t kow your uncle or what he says; send me a book and I’ll read it 🙂 ] says that the only answer is to shit-can our petroleum based economy for …. well, they don’t know, but they do know that the petroleum economy will destroy our planet. That they know for sure. SO, as far as Rush, Beck and Bush are concerned, the Luddites that make up the scientific community are advocating somehting that they are not willing to accept, that being the the destruction of the American economy as we know it. So, there is your explaination. I have a question: What, if anything, does the War in Iraq have to do with Bush’s indifference to ‘Global Warming’ and the number of schools that the money spent on Iraq can buy?

  21. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 29, 2006 at 4:28 am

    Rob, I am sorry, but if your uncle is writing a book about global warming, it is to put money in his pocket. As Rich has correctly stated, we have a very small, if any, effect on the world’s temperature. The ocean, volcanos, and the earth produce much more “greenhouse gas” than man has produced since he has been producing. The quest for money and control is the reason you are scared of global warming.

    Please clean up your language. Try to use expressions of speach instead of the f word. I would like this to be a safe and reasonable place to debate, not flip each other off.

    New Tone.

  22. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 4:32 am

    rich
    You’re picking and choosing facts that fit your skewed argument. You have to look at everything as a whole – that is what science does. Rush and Beck throw out stats that
    when taken out of context appear to have substance but when taken collectively mean nothing. Where are you getting these facts anyway? Hopefully not from Crichtons book. That thing is so full of holes. Yet he is asked by a repub senator to testify before congress on global warming. You are also generalizing terribly. Nobody is saying shitcan the economy. What we need to do is to follow the lead of other countries like:
    brazil – no foreign oil, 90% dependence on methanol/ethanol for transportation, grown domest.
    spain – all new building must incorporate photvoltaic technology.
    Germany, denmark sweden, netherlands – generating most of electricity from renewable resources (wind, wave)
    See, when new technologies are supported and emerge, new corporations move into the economy and supplant the old ones. Oh but I guess your o.k. with subsidizing oil and gas companies so they can sustain their record profits. Who’s the Luddite now?

  23. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 4:40 am

    new tone
    you really dont know what you’re talking about. My uncle wont make any money from this – he spent his advance doing research and any profit he makes will only offset his losses. He’s doing it for his grandchildren. He actually cares about people.
    How do you know that we aren’t causing it – how much research have you done? He’s been studying this stuff since the late 70’s, using hard scientific data, because he’s a SCIENTIST – thats what he does. But obviously you know more than him, right? If you’re offended by my language, too bad. I’m equally offended by your support for our current administration. I’m angry, and sometimes thats the only way to express it.

  24. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 29, 2006 at 4:40 am

    Rob, I am sorry, but you are worng in saying that

    “Germany, denmark sweden, netherlands – generating most of electricity from renewable resources (wind, wave)”

    Here are the facts son:

    Nuclear Power Stats for Rob in Los Osos click here

  25. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 29, 2006 at 4:42 am

    I may not be a scientist like your uncle, but at least I can use google. 🙂

    Pound sand Rob, Newt One.

  26. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 4:49 am

    newt one

    o.k, I was wrong about sweden, BFD. Furthermore, I actually don’t oppose nuclear power, especially the new technology. But did u notice that they are ALL committed to using renewables? Or are you to busy thinking up witty comebacks?

  27. Bob from San Luis
    August 29, 2006 at 4:59 am

    Nuclear power usuage in Europe:
    Germany:
    Electricity from nuclear power 32%
    Sweden:
    Electricity from nuclear power 52%
    Finland:
    Electricity from nuclear power 27%
    Denmark and the Netherlands (in the linked article on BBC .com) not reported.
    New Tone: Your “facts” don’t seem quite as compelling as you first stated. At this point, I am more inclined to believe Rob in Los Osos.

  28. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 29, 2006 at 6:03 am

    Just thought I would check on my pals here before bed.

    My facts were that the countries listed got most of their energy from the sun or the waves.

    I agree with Rob. With the new technology, nuclear can be very safe and efficient. The power plants in the 450 megawatt range, much smaller than Diable, are very small and can be cooled in conjunction with a municpal water treatment plant. They have been used extensively in Japan. The produce very little ratiation. The spent rods, encased in glass, are save to handle and can be moved to yucca mountain to be stored. The spent rods are apparently not much more radioactive than the uranuim that they were made out of.

    I appreciate your cleaning up your language Rob. I don’t have a problem with the bfd. Thanks for beinig considerate.

    New Tone.

  29. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 6:06 am

    Guys, the fact is that the everyone on the global warming debate picks and chooses their facts that support their arguemnt. In 1978, Time Magazine did a cover spread on “The Coming Ice Age”. From 1550 to 1850 was a period called the Little Ice Age, where temperatures actually dropped globally less than half a degree. Now on the other hand, National Geographic said in 2005 that another mini ice age was coming due to… [dramatic music]… Global Warming!!! Well, doesn’t that beg the question: what the hell were people doing in 1550 to cause the mini ice age? Were they driving their SUVs too much? Did they not use energy efficient light bulbs to light thier way out of the Dark Ages? Did the funeral pyres from the Black Death cause the global warming? Nope. Mother Nature did it. So, if there can be a mini ice age without global warming and for it to occur before the Age of Industialization, can’t there be global warming without humanity causing it?

    One last thing: There are no alternatives out there that produce as much power on a grand scale as nuclear (power plants rapidly opposed by environmentalists) and no economically viable source of power on the small scale to power the cars and trucks that keep our economy and our standard of living moving forward.

    I really hate it when people bring up Europe and Brazil or any other piss-ant country to throw up there as “the way it should be done”. There are more people living in California (33 million) than in all of Scandinavia (~19 million) so of course the economies of scale are smaller for them and therefore easier for them to do it. I firmly suggest that there are more peopel “committed” to alternative energy in the US than in all of Scandinavia. There has to be; there are more people in the US. Eco-warriors always forget the whole economies of scale when talking about “the way it should be done”.

    Finally, you asked for why Rush and Glen Beck believe what they believe. There were no “facts” given anywhere in my response other than that is what they believe.

  30. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 6:10 am

    But I forgot to include the base of this thread: It is all Bush’s fault, therefore he is a failure. He was probably the culprit in 1550 causing the Little Ice Age. That bastard!!!

  31. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Rich

    Its simply not true that scientists pick and choose their facts. You are making blanket statements that really can’t be backed up. Scientists study an area in depth and publish in, hopefully, peer-reviewed journals. What that means is that some person or group will study the data pertaining to one area – CO2 in atmosphere and ice cores; ocean temps over time; disapearring glaciers and polar ice; etc…and then publish their findings. Granted that data has been interpreted, but the fact that it is PEER REVIEWED tends to lend credibility to the interpretation. Heres a fact you should find interesting – of the 928 abstracts on climate change listed in the Institute for Scientific Information database – and these are all published in peer reviewed science journals- 75% supported the consensus position that global climate change is human effected; 25% dealt with with methods of reserach or paleoclimate and took no position. There were NO papers published in peer reviewed journals that took the contrary position. Did you hear that. Not ONE peer reviewed scientific paper was published that said global warming was not real and human caused.
    Why do you hate that I bring up other countries and their commitment to renewables? Your argument makes no sense – the economies of scale apply when you get larger and larger populations, not the other way. That is a fundamental flaw in your argument. I grant you that there are many people working on renewables – the problem is that our govt. doesnt support them with tax incentives and subsidies like it does the oil and gas industry. If Bush had said after 9/11 that we need a NASA-style renewable energy program and set us on a long range, forward thinking program to remove our dependence on petroleum, he could have opened up a whole new segment of the economy. But, he chose another path, one that insures our dependence on oil. Rich, I don’t blame Bush for the current problem, but I absolutely blame him for doing NOTHING about it

  32. JerryDinAZ
    August 29, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    “FAILURE”? HMMM…IF HOLDING THE WHITE HOUSE, SENATE AND HOUSE AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT IS FAILING…THEN FAIL ON! LOL LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH.

  33. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    You missed my point. The argument is perfectly valid when you look at the amount of time, resources and money it takes to bring something like alternative energy on-line. Spain can do it because they have fewer needs drawing money, time and resources away from renewable energy. Same thing for the scandanavian countries. Maybe ‘economies of scale’ is the wrong term, but the principle is sound. That’s why I hate that comparison. Talk to me about what India, China and Russia are doing with renewable energy. They are comparable in land mass and greater in population. You know what they are doing? They are importing the shit out of mideast oil. Why? Just like I said: petroleum is the only energy source right now that can drive an economy forward. Japan’s economy is growing because they produce their power from nuclear and the import of petroleum. Petroleum products, not alternative energy is what is driving all successful economies and will probably continue to do so for the next 20 years.

  34. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    By the way, gang, it was Richard Armitage that leaked Plame’s name. Not the President, not Cheney, not Rove, not even SCOTER LIBBY (the only guy charged with anything). Unless you cyanide drinkers (you guys are skipping the klool-aid and straight ingesting the cyanide) are willing to say that Michael Isikof is a Rove stooge, this is one “scandal” that was much ado about nothing. The story says that Plame’s name was out there since June 2003, three months after Iraq was invaded. Do you know where Armitage worked? The State Department. Not the White House and not the DoD. Chucky Schumer’s prosecutor’s prosecutor has said for two years that no crime was committed. Charge Armitage with a crime all you want, frog march him across the White House lawn if you want. I don’t care

  35. rob in los osos
    August 29, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    Rich

    Just because petroleum is driving the economies now is no reason to think that we should’nt be moving away from it. The fact that any country is doing it shows that it can be done on a nationwide scale. We in the U.S. are the smartest and hardest working people when we need to be. We could do this if we were all working towards it. Remember what happened in the 90’s with the dot com boom? There’s no reason to think we couldn’t have the same kind of boom centered around renewable energy. The difference would be that this boom would actually produce a tangible product, thereby protecting against the bust.
    You know what China’s reason for not moving towards renewables is? ‘The U.S. isn’t, why should we?’ If ever we needed to be world leaders, the time is now. I’m just worried that we’ve passed that time.
    I’m glad you brought up spain. What they did is require that all new building have some photovoltaic incorporated into it. Why don’t we do that? Hell, most places you build have some sort of architectural standard as regards roofing, exterior finish, etc..Often adding tens of thousands to the cost. A typical home system can be had for around $15,000. When you factor in rebates, and the fact that these systems basically give you free energy, they pay for themselves over about 10-15yrs. I know people will balk at ‘yet another’ govt imposed restriction or criteria, but this one actually benefits all of us.

  36. Rich from Paso
    August 29, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    That was the lamest thing I have seen you write. China isn’t because we aren’t? What grade are you in, 3rd grade? Maybe if we jump of a bridge China will too? Stupid. China isn’t going to renewables because they have too many f^&king people and petroleum and coal are the only ways to provide nearly two billion people a western style standard of living.

    Here is the ultimate answer to every problem we have with global warming, middle east terrorism, grenhouse gases, the whole nine yards. If you want to have a crash moonshot style program, then let’s explode a nuke under the middle east oil fields or invade Saudi Arabia and the Suadis will do it for us. It will end the petroleum economy, have little residual nuclear fallout and you will get your wish that the US MUST develop alternative energy and we will no longer be feeding the symbiotic relationship between our economy and mideast terrorism. Unless you are willing to go to such extremes, then face it, you’re stuck in a petroleum based economy for the forseable future.

  37. Anonymous
    August 29, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    rob said: “Remember what happened in the 90’s with the dot com boom?”

    You mean the one where investors invested tons of money on technology they didn’t understand, which created a short term boom followed by a total collapse of the sector when everyone figured out it was largely hype? You want to REPEAT that?

  38. rob in los osos
    August 30, 2006 at 4:15 am

    umm rich

    those are china’s words not mine. I was paraphrasing.

    anonymous – have the courage to post with an actual name or nickname. My point was that by creating something that people want or need, you can create a demand that generates its own economic boom. The difference would be that this would actually produce a tangible product. Take a course in economics, maybe you’ll understand then.

    Do you people actually read the posts and try to understand them, or do you just nitpick the little points?

  39. Bob from San Luis
    August 30, 2006 at 4:49 am

    As for China and Russia being “oil and coal dependent”, Rich is right on one count, it is all about economics. Oil and coal are proven technologies, even if they are not “clean”, they are cheap, at least in comparison to the clean technologies that are being pursued. Rob makes a good point about how if we could really push the renewable technologies, we would once again be world leaders in a technology that would benefit the entire world. Or, we can go along with the status quo that the Bush Administration is quite content with as it doesn’t rock the boat of those running the oil and coal companies. Rich, you yourself have mentioned how it only takes leadership and commitment; the current leadership in the federal government will not step up and deliver. We need a change in leadership.

  40. Rich from Paso
    August 30, 2006 at 5:55 am

    Until you post a website where China said exactly that, those are your words, pal. ‘Rob’ doesn’t sound Chinese to me.

  41. Anonymous
    August 30, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Rob sounds like a very unhappy man, so he spews his anger and resentment here like it’s therapy…Maybe a professional would be of more help Rob.

  42. Rich from Paso
    August 30, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    Hey, Jerry and New Tone, isn’t deafening how silent the lefties on this blog are that Richard Armitage, not anyone in the White House was the person that disclosed Valerie Plame’s name? I think that Bush needs to have Alberto Gonzales charge Richard Armitage with violating the Espionage Act and ahve him arrested, thus keeping Bush’s word that whoever is responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  43. rob in los osos
    August 30, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    hey anony-mouse

    I may seem unhappy (I’m not, actually I’m angry, but you have a right to your anonymous opinion), but at least I have the courage to post using my own name.

  44. rob in los osos
    August 30, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    Rich
    Why should we comment on armitage. Obviously the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree. He’s just as bad as all the others, being one of the PNAC signers. Perhaps he was doing the dirty work for others?
    Thanks for the link too – Valerie Plame’s hot! 🙂

  45. Rich from Paso
    August 30, 2006 at 8:20 pm

    Well, Rob, then you should join me in calling for the AG to investigate what he said and when he said it and who he said it to.

    Yeah, she’s not bad.

  46. rob in los osos
    August 31, 2006 at 12:34 am

    Rich

    You got it. I’m happy that we finally agree on something. Maybe there’s hope for you yet! 🙂

  47. Rich from Paso
    August 31, 2006 at 1:01 am

    So long as our discussions remain about women…

  48. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 31, 2006 at 5:13 am

    I wonder if Micelle D. is going to come and ask for the arrest of this new leaker? She thought Rove or Cheney or even Bush himself leaked the name of this non-covert cia analyst. Santa MAria Bill, where are you with your admitting you were wrong. Libby? What should happen to him now my liberal friends? Pray tell.

  49. Rich from Paso
    August 31, 2006 at 6:27 am

    I gotta say: Rush is right on this one. Pardon Libby for “lying” about something that wasn’t a crime until he was questioned about it and throw the book at Armitage for violating the Espionage Act. Of course, all the Libs out there will cry foul about the pardon, but Clinton lied to EVERYONE IN AMERICA about getting a hummer from Monica (watch the video again and tell me he didn’t lie)and he just lost his law license for, what? A year or two. Libby may have just lied to Fitzgerald about not remembering he remembered something he said or didn’t say. At any rate, Rush is right that Libby was indicted for something that had nothing to do with the base of the investigation: who outed Plame.

  50. rob in los osos
    August 31, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Rich

    I agree with you. Throw the book at him. However, I still wonder why you always have to jab at the liberals? This isn’t a conservative vs liberal case. The problem I have with so many of these issues is that we always present them as an ‘us vs them’, so a person is forced to take sides. Thats not the way we’ll ever solve any problems. Not to belabor the global warming thing, but thats how that is constantly being recast. We truly need to get past the lib v con arguments and focus on doing the correct thing.
    Now come over here and give me a hug, you big dumb conservative!

  51. Rich from Paso
    August 31, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    HAHAHA Well, okay, since you put it that way, here’s your hug, you squishy, old Liberal.

    About the Con vs Lib issue: The problem is that liberals DEMAND that conservatives go their way and that “compromise” can oknly happen when a conservative betrays their values for the sake of peace with liberals. I think that if we had a my conservatism based tax policy (10% flat tax on income after the first $5000/10% national sales tax/ no deductions for individuals; 20% flat corporate tax with 10% deduction on these 5 areas: education, healthcare, environmental stewardship, R and D, and capital improvements; end all other taxes on the individual- you can ask Bob, I posted this several months ago) then we could end the social engineering of our tax policy, and free our economy. Then we could afford to have a NASA style programs for a national bullet rail system, alternative energy et al. But liberals in COngress refuse to even discuss these things because, right now, Pelosi and Reid and Dean are more concerned about fighting Republicans and regaining power. I know that at some point someone has to break the cycle and actually start the healing process and actually try to work on a “bipartisanship” basis. All I hear from liberal politicians is two things: 1) regain control of Congress, 2) impeach Bush, 3) retreat from Iraq. There is no agenda beyond thsoe three things. There has been no NASA style alternative fuel program proposed by the Dems, no plan on how to get us off of foreign oil and ween America off of the petroleum based economy. Nothing Hell, I have proposed more ways to end our dependance on oil than they have. Deny it if you will, but you know I’m right and that is all any Republican hears.

  52. rob in los osos
    September 7, 2006 at 5:02 am

    Rich

    That was a great last post – up until you started throwing blame. It would have been much stronger if you’d just said your piece, wh I for one have grown weary of it.ich I whole heartedly agree with, and left it at that. But you had to blame someone. Why don’t we all just STOP playing the game that the politicians want us to play – the US against THEM game. Its the only thing that keeps them in power.

  53. Rich from Paso
    September 7, 2006 at 5:20 am

    Trust me when I tell you that there is plenty of blame on both sides, but my overall point was that there is NO ONE in elected office these days that is working to fix anything. It’s all about personal power and patronage for both Republicans and Democrats.

    In my post I was answering your question “why does it have to be us vs them?” from a partisan stand point.

  54. JerryDinAZ
    September 7, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    IT’S NOT “US VS THEM” IT’S THE BLUE IDIOTS VS RED INTELIGENCE. DEPSERATE DEMOCANTS ARE IN THE CORNER AND HURTING! WILL THEY SURVIVE A 10 COUNT? MAYBE ONCE, BUT ALAS, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY GO DOWN FOR THE COUNT. (NO PUN INTENEDED)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: