Forums Index >> General >> Reason Number Six-Thousand something...
Page : <1> :
Bush Faces Growing Dissent From Republicans on Climate Change
April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, says he ``pooh-poohed'' global warming until he trekked to the South Pole in January.
``Now, I think we should be concerned,'' says Inglis, who heads the U.S. House Science Research subcommittee. ``There are more and more Republicans willing to stop laughing at climate change who are ready to get serious about reclaiming their heritage as conservationists.''
U.S. Companies including General Electric Co. And Duke Energy Corp. Have come out in support of national limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists say contribute to global warming. They are now being joined by Republican lawmakers who have parted company with President George W. Bush on the issue.
In addition to Inglis, who says he saw evidence of heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere during his trip to Antarctica, the list includes Senators Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the chairman of the chamber's Energy Committee; Mike DeWine of Ohio; and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as well as Representative Jim Leach of Iowa.
``Resistance to action on climate change is crumbling,'' says Reid Detchon, an Energy Department official under former President George H.W. Bush who is now head of energy and climate at the United Nations Foundation. ``The business community has a number of prominent leaders arguing for action, and the science on climate change becomes clearer and more inescapable by the day.''
Team bush is fracturing. Theocrats on one side, the obstinate, but not terribly stupid on the other. Once the majority of the GOP and big business acknowledge Global warming, what will the BCs and the rest of you ideology heavy turds use for cover?
And: do you really enjoy being wrong? Because you guys have been making a habit of it for years. Wrong on every issue so far. What's next?
Heh...are these threads even necessary now? It's like kicking a man when he's down. ;)
- Bomb...James Bomb
Once the majority of the GOP and big business acknowledge Global warming,
Don't mistake the equivocations of polititians and herd mentality for scientific proof.
Apparently BC is smarter than:
The National Academy of Science
The World Meteorological Association Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The US Environmental Protection Agency
The US Department of Energy
NASA's Goddard Institute
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The World Resources Institute
ETC.
Which makes him about as smart as George W Bush.
Disheartening to see the intellectual dishonesty employed in preserving your outmoded ideology BC. And you keep talking about herds...yours is getting smaller by the day. BC: last cow standing.
Last edited: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 8:11:37 AM
Hmmmm B... C....
Ahhhh,
Bush-Centric
Bush-Caballero
Bush-Cadaver
Bush-Calvary
Bush-Clone
Bush-Conformist
Last edited: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 8:53:55 AM
Hey Stink, Remember when Reagan blamed air pollution on trees? Hell no wonder in Oregon we jumped on those firs like monkeys on a cupcake.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 8:22:42 AM
I remember that holy crusade against trees flea. And what would you have Reagan do? Wait until the trees had us surrounded, choking us from all sides? We took them on in the national forests so that we wouldn't have to take them on in the cities.
Ghost: it isn't fair to imply that BC is a Bush supporter. He isn't. It's just that he read ayn rand's instruction manual for "how to handle life" (or so he thought) when he was 12 and hasn't veered from the plan yet. Some people worship Gods; BC worships capital and capitalism. But it isn't a coincidence that GOP conservativism and BC's religious views share a reverence for the free market. I'd say BC ends up supporting Bush policies despite himself, but just as staunchly as a fundamentalist.
The fact that "Air Quality" is part of the weather report now....I mean....I thought that kind of stuff would only happen in Apocalyptic Sci-Fi movies.
You know what's disturbing? Bush has been been beating the environment by laxing environment requirements for 6 years, and now...NOW...people take notice...because gas is expensive.
Read the paper today? In order to help the gas companies pay the new proposed tax, he's proposing lightening the standards for scrubbing at the plantsrefineries.
Say what? Does he just not read the paper anymore?
- Bomb...James Bomb
His head is lodged deeply into his ass. It's a love circle.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html
MONTEREY, California (Reuters) -- The record Atlantic hurricane season last year can be attributed to global warming, several top experts, including a leading U.S. Government storm researcher, said on Monday.
"The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now," said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
"It's morning in America..."
RFK Jr. On Bush and the Environment.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – one of America's largest environmental advocacy groups. He is also chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and a clinical law professor at the Pace University School of Law. He has written widely on environmental issues, and his books include "Crimes Against Nature." Often referred to as Bobby Jr., he is the son of the late Senator Bobby Kennedy.
In the three part series Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Draws attention to the Bush administration's poor environmental record, giving details of some 51 state prosecutions that have been dropped during George W. Bush's presidency. His administration has also changed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The new legislation effectively rolls back statutory laws that obliged America's 1,100 coal burning power plants to clean up pollutants known to cause mercury contamination and acid rain.
http://www.bigpicture.tv/index.php?id=73&cat=&a=179
Last edited: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 11:44:25 AM
@Stinks and minions
Congatulate yourself on being as good at getting the facts right as our average media. I've been keeping track of what I've said. Your representations continue to drift ever further from what I've said and you've now constructed a large body of distortion that others are repeating.
So goes the media, of which you are a textbook microcosm.
As another has suggested, what's the point? You have lost any credibility I once imagined you possesed.
Are you really suggesting that the media has influenced that distinquished list of science organizations which I cited above?
Sand:meet head.
BC... It is all in good fun?
FWIW: NTIWATM (Not That Its Worth All That Much)... But it sure seems like you would get your point across much more clearly if you didn't try so hard to formulate your thoughts with such lofty prose.
Stinky;
So I guess referring to BC a Bush Caballero was off base eh? (lol).
@ Blind Cide:
Hate locking horns since I've always enjoyed our games on the battlefield, but...
Congatulate yourself on being as good at getting the facts right as our average media.
Ummm....how about a little backing on this statement? No offense, but the reduction in environmental requirements for power stations and fuel refineries are actually well-documented. Just this morning the paper quoted that Bush had suggested further reduction of scrubbing requirements for refineries for the sake of trying to temporarily reduce gas prices. This is from yesterday afternoon's press conference and can be viewed again for your confirmation.
The bottom line is that all of this is REAL, it's just the average American didn't give a crap until the news media put it in the spotlight. So, yes, you can blame the media for making this a public issue, but it's an issue that should've been brought to light much sooner. Frankly, I think this is mostly a sign that Bush's stranglehold on maintaining "positive" media is finally starting to slip.
Truth be told, we've been pissed about this long before the media finally decided to bring it up.
- Bomb...James Bomb
Ditto that.
BC you said: "Don't mistake the equivocations of polititians and herd mentality for scientific proof." as if that was what we've been doing. The evidence in support of global warming has been steadily increasing. Pretty much every serious scientist in the country not in the pocket of the GOP or big oil is in agreement about the phenomenon the point of that post was to suggest that even the most intransigent "thinkers" in our society are beginning to come around to what our greatest scientific minds have known for years. The media has little to do with it.
I've pointed a finger at you because I think your denial has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology. Don't take it personally. But at the same time, if you are going to ignore the evidence and make contrary claims without support, be ready to get called on it. Your denial borders on the irrational. I think that you fear the consequences that acceptance of Global Warming will have on your beloved philosophy, because you see the evil hand of regulation strangling the market. Well, I suggest to you that this is life. What else will compel corporations as well as individuals to limit their pernicious effect on the environment, if not the government?
I know, I know, I know...your philosophy doesn't allow for government to serve the function of regulation. I've heard that before from you, ad nauseum. That's partly why its a dead end philosophy,
There you go twisting things to your own ends.
Which is easily said. Care to expand, or content to continue with claims of misrepresentation interspersed with Randian aphorisms?
I thought that was what you're supposed to do in a debate? Take the info at hand and use it to support your cause.
Look, I'll admit that there will always be two sides to this issue. There are plenty of studies on both sides that either say "the sky is falling" or "this is just a cycle." Really, the most grounded reports are those that show that the cycle has been _altered_ by our abuse, and that is why we need to worry.
But, you know how it is. Nobody took the cyclic weather-change seriously until New Orleans submerged. We'll probably not get truly serious about the environment until people start purchasing oxygen suplements for their home air-conditioning units.
But, studies aside, there is a simpler way to look at this. So far, we have always used MORE engines, MORE factories, and MORE power stations. We have compensated for this by raising the requirements for smog, emmission scrubbing, and even some renewable energy stations. We also have added additional logging regulations. A reasonable compromise that has kept things in check.
However, since Bush jr. Came to town, he has REDUCED emmission requirements, removed many logging regulations, and has just about killed federal funding for renewable energy development. So, we are still INCREASING machinery, yet DECREASING the regulation of its impact. This does not take a rocket scientist to deduce the eventual outcome.
Yah...I'm placing emphasis on the details that support MY point of view. I'm connecting only the dots that pertain to me. In a debate, you COUNTER by supporting your side. I can't help being bias to my own opinion.
- Bomb...James Bomb
Guess not.
When you're drilling cores 2km in the Greenland ice, in the ocean sediment and in the Antartica ice, methink it gives you a clear picture. Actually of a few millions years back. No less.
Easy to say 'these are cycles'. What we are seeing and talking about here is that humans, for the first time since Earth's creation (see: Flying Spaghetti Monster), start to have a definite effect on those cycles.
Ok there were more CO2 at some points (with catastrophic effects btw), but they were not human-made CO2 increases.
This age we're in even now has its own name: the Anthropocene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
Enjoy! :)
Here's why BC won't budge
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr011=08pzwh6sx1.app5a&page=NewsArticle&id=7363&news_iv_ctrl=1084
Denying global warming is PART OF HIS RELIGION.
And more:
Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists -- amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature" -- there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision -- i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears....
In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.
[quote]City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem -- not a political one -- and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is whole-sale death.
"The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 142.
As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry -- if the preservation of human life is the standard.
It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one.
"The Left: Old and New," The New Left, 89.
Frightening, ugly, stupid.
It's a cycle....we're just not waiting for the next "global-killer meteor" is all. Wonder what the follow-on species will be. Cockroach civilization?
- Bomb...James Bomb
Yes, reason and logic are my religion. Guilty as charged.
Eh, the New Left has some valid points, but they are speaking out against those that think we should move back into trees. We are not those people.
I whole-heartedly embrace technology and believe that technology can help, just as the New Left states. My point is that we are completely ignoring technology that could reduce pollutions, global warming, etc. Solar panels, fuel-efficiency, hydro-turbines, etc. Instead, the current government jsut keeps concentrating on how to get more oil. If anything, that is blatantly ignoring good technology that could solve the problem.
In the meantime, it is perfectly reasonable to reduce your use of certain "technologies" if there is a fault or dilemna with it's application. You don't keep using a calculator when you find out it is giving wrong answers that will come back to bite you. Scraping for more oil to feed our gas-guzzler SUVs is the "wrong answer."
If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry -- if the preservation of human life is the standard.
A good quote, actually. The problem is that the Bush administration is currently peeling away the laws that were in place for such a reason. We have now dug ourselves a hole, and therefore need to adjust our lifestyles until industry can provide technology that doesn't have an approaching dead-end.
Bomb...James Bomb
Well, I'm a vulture.
JB: what about what comes after that quote? "It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one."
Global warming is "the next big crusade," right BC? Leftists hate peace just as much as they hate capitalism, and truth.
I read that environmental scientists are starting to worry about ocean methane "burp." Heard about it? A small temperature rise may affect humans big time.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
I confess that the "crusade" thing is blatant paranoia. It's an amusing idea that a civil war would be started due to environmental concerns.
I've read about the methane "burp." Basically, you have a lot of methane being generated by bacteria that lives within the icy floor at the bottom of the arctic oceans. The occasional burp has caused sudden death to the food chain around the area. However, these have been localized incidents. Some scientists claim there is a possibility that there may be a giant bubble that is just waiting for the ocean to warm up enough to allow it to crack through and dump it's methane contents into the ocean. The ecological ramifications are pretty severe, granted, but it's still only a theoretical situation. However, the methane "burps" has become one of the newest (and strongest) theories of why so many planes lost power or boats sank at the Bermuda Triangle. It was a pretty cool documentary.
- Bomb...James Bomb
Here's why Stink won't budge...
Embracing global warming is PART OF HIS RELIGION.
The greatest recent event -- that 'Earth is dead', that the belief in the cyclical nature of temperature change has become unbelievable -- is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least, whose eyes -- the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, 'older'. But in the main one may say: The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means -- and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending -- who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
— Nietzsche, Gay Science, Book V, sec. 343, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Last edited: Friday, April 28, 2006 at 3:51:37 AM
LOL. I don't just embrace global warming, I'm also the president of the Global Warming Fan Club. We think we're cute because by "fan" we employ a double entendre. By "we" I mean, mom and i. But I think my neighbor may be interested in joining. His dog died and now he seems lost and somewhat bored. You guys interested? If you join, you'll get a cool pin with neechy's face superimposed over a penquin wearing sunglasses...
The inscription on the pin reads, "I told you so back in 1887."
More on what's wrong with BC's polemics against global warming:
"Ayn Rand Institute Protests Against Environmentalism"
MARINA DEL REY, CA--The pro-capitalist Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) will defend the development of the Playa Vista with a demonstration outside the Santa Monica "town hall" meeting sponsored by environmentalist groups opposed to the development. "Environmentalists claim they want to save the earth for mankind; this is a lie," says Richard Ralston, ARI spokesman. "Environmentalists view man as the enemy because of their belief that nature must be protected, not for man but from man. Environmentalists place frogs and swamps above human welfare. This is immoral.
By human welfare, I suppose they mean profit margins, as human welfare is best preserved by having a healthy earth.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=7595
"Conservation vs. The American Dream"
President Bush agrees with this approach, ordering energy conservation at federal offices in California and endorsing a range of energy saving tips for homes, work sites and industrial plants.
But in fact, Bush and Cheney and Gov. Davis should repudiate conservation as a policy because it is both impractical and immoral.
It is impractical because it does not address the real cause of the problem--government regulations and environmentalist restrictions that stifle energy producers. It is immoral because conservation repudiates the American Dream.
Conservation? Anti-american. Entitlements? You bet, and righteous also.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=5187
"Earth Day Celebrates Hatred of Man"
If environmentalists succeed, they will make human life impossible.
Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalists is not clean air and clean water; rather it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Their goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
Environmentalism: the church of the self-loathing sub-terranean. Earth day: his life inimical bacchanal.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=6159
"Death by Environmentalism"
MARINA DEL REY, CA--It was revealed last week that four young firefighters burned to death in late July while fighting a forest fire in Washington state--because Forest Service officials didn't think they could allow helicopters to extract water from the habitat of an "endangered" species of fish.
"What is outrageous in this tragedy," said Robert Tracinski, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and a columnist for Creators Syndicate, "is that there was ever any question about taking the water. The bureaucratic mix-up (Forest Service officials did have the authority to take the water) only happened because of the widespread environmentalist presumption that saving fish is a non-negotiable goal, which takes precedence over saving humans."
Tracinski noted that the "firefighters deaths are perfectly consistent with long-standing federal water policy in the West, such as the recent withholding of irrigation water from Klamath Basin farmers in Oregon. If, for the sake of fish, we are sacrificing these farmers' livelihoods--what's to stop us from sacrificing firefighters' lives?"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=5469
????
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these articles came up when I typed "environmentalism" into the aynrand.org website. Without exception, every article attacked environmentalism as a pernicious, insidious, irrational anti-humanity movement fomented to step in between man and his destiny.
They all read like 19th century apologetics for the industrial revolution. They're obviously informed by a 40s/50s vision of a former soviet peasant exuberant for the limitless utopian promise of the west. Its a dead and out of touch philosophy. The world has changed dramatically since then, but the ayn rand world view has not.
Logic and reason? How bout a philosophy of greed, selfishness, accumulation, and intransigence, buttressed by a sense of entitlement, the concept of manifest destiny, and a hatred of science.
It is dishonest for BC to pretend to be rational and objective when evaluating the science of global warming. His position is the line championed by the cult of rand. you are entitled to your opinion BC, and you are entitled to your beliefs. I just don't think it's honest to enter into a discussion of this subject as though you were objective. For one thing, people are wasting their time linking articles, or laying out rational arguments to persuade you. Just let em know its a waste of time. It isn't logic and reason that led you to your conclusions, so logic and reason aren't likely to lead you away...its like arguing evolution with a fundamentalist.
Last edited: Friday, April 28, 2006 at 10:15:57 AM
Where the hell do you guys find this stuff? Just how many religions are there, anyways? We got religions that ban technologys, and religions that persecute those that ban technology. Tell you what, can one of you find me a religion for/against coffee? I just want to know who I might be pissing off when I fuel myself in the morning.
- Bomb...James Bomb
Ayn Rand died in 1982. It would be neat to hear her current position, from her own writings. Most thinkers evolve dramatically during the course of their life.
The world changed a lot since 1982. The 80s were lots of fun (2-3 cars per family, pre-computers, China/Brazil/India still in 3rd World so to speak, etc.) but the 21st century opens on a whole new world.
In 1900s there were about 1 billion folks, in 1999 there were over 6 billions. It's an entirely different context.
We'll never know what it was like when there were 'only' 1 billion folks roaming this beautiful planet.
It is expected that human population will stabilize around 9 billions this century.
Ayn Rand landed in NY from Russia in the 20s. It was the glory days! Of course one's philosophy can be imbued with the Crazy 20's' spirit - but man, we're so far from the 20's I think I'll cry.
That's my thought too huggy. Therein lies the danger of blindly following an un-evolving, closed system.
This is a very different world. Rand appears to be a champion of unbridled human expression through the creative process of engaging in unfettered capitalism. But our damaged surroundings, imperiled resources and burgeoning population are problems precisely because we've excercised no restraint.
Restraint isn't a sign of a hatred of life: its a sign of our recognition of our responsibility to each other and to the world we inhabit.
I've always thought that if there were a billion of us on the planet, we could each live a completely unrestrained life...do what ever we wanted...drive hummers, dump our garbage in the ocean, field-burn our yards instead of mowing them. Our impact would be negligible just because of the sheer magnitude of our planet and the relatively small number of humans. But 6.5 billion people change the game dramatically. We can't all practice the lifestyle of "rational self-interest" aka, unbridled capitalism, consequences be damned, without simultaneously producing a vastly negative impact. The obvious damage measurable by all indicators testifies to this.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
JB: think mormonism and scientology! Anti-coffee. I'm sure there are others.
Last edited: Friday, April 28, 2006 at 12:07:54 PM
A colbert beat down on a preeminent conservative thinker.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/28.html#a8079
Colbert: Speaking of thinking alike, you were a member, or are a member of the New Project for the American Century, correct?
Kristol: I am.
Colbert: Where or am, am?
Kristol: Where and am.
Colbert: How's that project coming?
Kristol: well. It's..(stammering)
Colbert: How's the New American Century, looks good to me?
Kristol: Ahh--I think...hehe yea--I'm speechless..
Colbert: Really?
Kristol: Yea...we've sort of...the Project for the New American Century is just a few people..
Colbert: Come on, it’s a terrific New American Century, right?
Kristol: Well I think we do OK.
Colbert: You Rummy Wolfowitz, Cheney, Pearle, Feith, all you guys right?
Kristol responds timidly:
Kristol: Well, we fought back after 9/11..
colbert shows how to talk to a conservative...conservatives are extremists. To make them look stupid, just take one step...to the right of them. Just by taking one tiny step more right than them, you've entered into a zany, crazy place that even they have to acknowledge makes them look retarded, rabid, and out-moded.
Stinks, if you post all the crooks and liars goodies, what the hell am I supposed to do :)?
^ You just keep taking night lessons in Scifleaentology so you can spank Jang, Bang, and Tang.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Here ya go tally:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/28.html#a8087
a democrat trying to end tax breaks to oil millionaires, but republicans don't bite. Thanks republicans.
Meanwhile:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/28.html#a8082
democratic congressmen get arrested for a protest trying to call attention to the slaughter in darfur.
Not quite as exciting as republicans getting arrested for corruption or anything, I know. Thanks democrats.
but democrats don't stand for anything
Last edited: Friday, April 28, 2006 at 3:29:33 PM
Reason Number Six-Thousand something and ONE
what REALLY happened to Alfred E. Newman:
I love my randylion
Page : <1> :
: :
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/23.html#a8020
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml