Spring Break
Dear Barack Obama...
Abstract:
I am writing to complain about an interruption of my privacy.
Recently I sat down to watch "Saturday Night Live." I figured that after a long day of studying I might be able to lay back on my couch and laugh a little bit.
There's just one problem: every 10 minutes, the show was interrupted by one of your grandstanding political ads....
- Displaying 1 - 25 of 25
Delphinia
posted 5/13/08 @ 10:28 AM PST
Dear Mr. Wozich,
Please write a column telling us how our current President, George W. Bush has brought this country to the stellar place it is today. You must think he's done a fine job and we're achieving all the exemplary, honorable, globally admired success you think Barack Obama is incapable of delivering.
If you think I'm willing to place my bet on a candidate as different from Bush as night and day, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. The embarrassing and detrimental effects of the last eight years will be with us for some time. But we can begin anew to work to a better place -- together. I hope when the time comes you'll join in.
Please write a column telling us how our current President, George W. Bush has brought this country to the stellar place it is today. You must think he's done a fine job and we're achieving all the exemplary, honorable, globally admired success you think Barack Obama is incapable of delivering.
If you think I'm willing to place my bet on a candidate as different from Bush as night and day, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. The embarrassing and detrimental effects of the last eight years will be with us for some time. But we can begin anew to work to a better place -- together. I hope when the time comes you'll join in.
Daniel
posted 5/13/08 @ 12:36 PM PST
Mr. Wozich,
While your arguments against corn based ethanol are quite compelling, if anything they only strengthen that portion of Barack Obama's stance. You even noted in your article that Obama is specifically endorsing cellulosic ethanol (which you called celluloid ethanol). Since it appears you are incapable of making a simple google search, let me direct you to some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/cellulosic-ethanol.html
As a summary of the content in those links: Cellulosic ethanol is produced from the cellulose in plants (hence the name). It is made from the non-edible portions of food crops, such as the stalks of corn or wheat, or can be made from waste wood products. In short, we can grow our crops for both food and fuel.
In the future, it would be wise to try understand the things that you read before you profess your ignorance in a public forum.
While your arguments against corn based ethanol are quite compelling, if anything they only strengthen that portion of Barack Obama's stance. You even noted in your article that Obama is specifically endorsing cellulosic ethanol (which you called celluloid ethanol). Since it appears you are incapable of making a simple google search, let me direct you to some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/cellulosic-ethanol.html
As a summary of the content in those links: Cellulosic ethanol is produced from the cellulose in plants (hence the name). It is made from the non-edible portions of food crops, such as the stalks of corn or wheat, or can be made from waste wood products. In short, we can grow our crops for both food and fuel.
In the future, it would be wise to try understand the things that you read before you profess your ignorance in a public forum.
Shanie
posted 5/16/08 @ 12:12 PM PST
Originally posted byDaniel
Mr. Wozich,
While your arguments against corn based ethanol are quite compelling, if anything they only strengthen that portion of Barack Obama's stance. You even noted in your article that Obama is specifically endorsing cellulosic ethanol (which you called celluloid ethanol). Since it appears you are incapable of making a simple google search, let me direct you to some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/cellulosic-ethanol.html
As a summary of the content in those links: Cellulosic ethanol is produced from the cellulose in plants (hence the name). It is made from the non-edible portions of food crops, such as the stalks of corn or wheat, or can be made from waste wood products. In short, we can grow our crops for both food and fuel.
In the future, it would be wise to try understand the things that you read before you profess your ignorance in a public forum.
I'm so glad someone brought that up. Right after reading the article I did a little Wikipedia search myself. I know this is an opinion piece, but I feel like the Barometer should print some kind of retraction, or at least another opinion segment showing the weakness of this argument. I worry that Oregon State students will eat up this inaccurate information. I'm a die hard Barack fan and the article momentarily made me question his energy policy. that is until I did a simple google search and realized how flawed the article is. I have one thing to say to Dwight...FALSE! Black Bear! FACT! Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
Patriot
posted 5/21/08 @ 9:40 AM PST
Are you so blinded by Obama's pearly whites that you really just made the argument that energy subsidies aren't raising the price of food all over the world? Did you skip the part where he sited the New York times? Have you had your head out of your ass at all lately? It is common knowledge that governments are now paying more for crops that can be turned into energy. Rice patties are making way for soy beans and corn fields. Tada! Rice Shortage! We are burning food instead of eating it, according to two Berkeley Professors.
Obama puts tariffs on things and they become more expensive ... things like ethanol! Open up the markets and we won't have a need for more expensive US based ethanol. It is simple economics - a country should make what it is best at making and import what it can not produce efficiently. (http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-krugman-on-useless-us-ethanol.html)
McCain, while he supports ethanol, is against the subsidies that the government puts on it (free market). Those subsidies are partly responsible for rising food prices. Obama is for those subsidies (artificial market). Again, those subsidies mess with the free market and put other sectors in danger. Corn-based ethanol is unefficient compared to sugar-based ethanol. Press Obama to cut off tariffs ... or vote for McCain...
Obama puts tariffs on things and they become more expensive ... things like ethanol! Open up the markets and we won't have a need for more expensive US based ethanol. It is simple economics - a country should make what it is best at making and import what it can not produce efficiently. (http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-krugman-on-useless-us-ethanol.html)
McCain, while he supports ethanol, is against the subsidies that the government puts on it (free market). Those subsidies are partly responsible for rising food prices. Obama is for those subsidies (artificial market). Again, those subsidies mess with the free market and put other sectors in danger. Corn-based ethanol is unefficient compared to sugar-based ethanol. Press Obama to cut off tariffs ... or vote for McCain...
Originally posted byDaniel
Mr. Wozich,
While your arguments against corn based ethanol are quite compelling, if anything they only strengthen that portion of Barack Obama's stance. You even noted in your article that Obama is specifically endorsing cellulosic ethanol (which you called celluloid ethanol). Since it appears you are incapable of making a simple google search, let me direct you to some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/cellulosic-ethanol.html
As a summary of the content in those links: Cellulosic ethanol is produced from the cellulose in plants (hence the name). It is made from the non-edible portions of food crops, such as the stalks of corn or wheat, or can be made from waste wood products. In short, we can grow our crops for both food and fuel.
In the future, it would be wise to try understand the things that you read before you profess your ignorance in a public forum.
Daniel
posted 5/27/08 @ 2:34 PM PST
I never once said that our ethanol policies are not affecting the price of our food. In retrospect, I was not clear on my point: grain ethanols are a horrible source of fuel. This includes ethanol made by fermenting the sugars in the edible portions of corn. If we use only the edible portions of corn for fuel, then we will have a net energy loss.
However, not all sources of ethanol are the same. Cellulosic ethanol, as I pointed out, is made from cellulose. This cellulose is what makes up the majority of the plant, such as the stalk. It is this ethanol that Barack Obama is proposing we use. As I said before, this allows us to harvest the corn for food, and then to use the remaining stalks and such to convert into ethanol. This should then give us a net energy gain, while not impacting the price of foods.
In addition, we can use land not suitable for food production to grow other crops that can be turned into ethanol by fermentation of the cellulose.
However, not all sources of ethanol are the same. Cellulosic ethanol, as I pointed out, is made from cellulose. This cellulose is what makes up the majority of the plant, such as the stalk. It is this ethanol that Barack Obama is proposing we use. As I said before, this allows us to harvest the corn for food, and then to use the remaining stalks and such to convert into ethanol. This should then give us a net energy gain, while not impacting the price of foods.
In addition, we can use land not suitable for food production to grow other crops that can be turned into ethanol by fermentation of the cellulose.
Brett Nunley
posted 5/13/08 @ 4:13 PM PST
George Bush isn't running for office, Delphinia.
Wozich tries to bring up some valid points, and the typical liberal response to is ask, "What about Bush?" If they think McCain=Bush, they need to stop reading moveon.org and actually looking into the facts. Of course, facts are too old-fashioned for liberals.
Wozich could have included a lot more in his column, but there are space constraints. For example, how can Barack Obama bring both parties together when he's considered the most liberal senator in the country?
Wozich tries to bring up some valid points, and the typical liberal response to is ask, "What about Bush?" If they think McCain=Bush, they need to stop reading moveon.org and actually looking into the facts. Of course, facts are too old-fashioned for liberals.
Wozich could have included a lot more in his column, but there are space constraints. For example, how can Barack Obama bring both parties together when he's considered the most liberal senator in the country?
Mike
posted 5/13/08 @ 10:42 PM PST
Thank you for reminding us all, Mr. Nunley, that George Bush is not running for a third term. We can all use refreshing reminders now and then.
Perhaps now would be a good time to point out to both you and Mr. Wozich, that Bush supports the furthering of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm confident your innate ability to fact-check, a birthright shared by all conservatives, already turned that up.
You both try to bring up some good points, but you're too old-fashioned for the facts.
Perhaps now would be a good time to point out to both you and Mr. Wozich, that Bush supports the furthering of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm confident your innate ability to fact-check, a birthright shared by all conservatives, already turned that up.
You both try to bring up some good points, but you're too old-fashioned for the facts.
Brett Nunley
posted 5/14/08 @ 1:53 AM PST
Originally posted byMike
Thank you for reminding us all, Mr. Nunley, that George Bush is not running for a third term. We can all use refreshing reminders now and then.
Perhaps now would be a good time to point out to both you and Mr. Wozich, that Bush supports the furthering of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm confident your innate ability to fact-check, a birthright shared by all conservatives, already turned that up.
You both try to bring up some good points, but you're too old-fashioned for the facts.
I'm confused, Mike. You tried to be facetious, then you point out one of Bush's flaws again. People like you and Roman Nose can't get over this guy....... I mean, do you have a hate-shrine set up of him in your apartment?
Oh, and you should leave your last name so I know who you are.
Mike
posted 5/14/08 @ 11:14 AM PST
Originally posted byMike
Thank you for reminding us all, Mr. Nunley, that George Bush is not running for a third term. We can all use refreshing reminders now and then.
Perhaps now would be a good time to point out to both you and Mr. Wozich, that Bush supports the furthering of cellulosic ethanol, but I'm confident your innate ability to fact-check, a birthright shared by all conservatives, already turned that up.
You both try to bring up some good points, but you're too old-fashioned for the facts.
Lost me here. Where did I point out one of Bush's flaws? He can hardly be blamed for not running for a third term, the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution bars him from that.
To respond to your point though, no I can't get over Bush. He's still the President of the United States, and has been for nearly eight years now. Just because a new President will be elected before the year is through doesn't mean the decisions made by and the policies put into play by Bush won't have long-lasting effects on the entire world.
Jason
posted 5/13/08 @ 11:42 PM PST
How is it that I, a liberal (whom Brett Nunley feels the need to collectively ciritcize in almost every piece of writing I have ever read from him, because just like McCain and Bush are exactly the same, all liberals are exactly the same), find myself agreeing more and more with what Mr. Nunley has to say? Please, please, PLEASE do NOT vote for Obama simply because he is the least similar to Bush, and for the love of Reason, don't vote for him just because he's the trendy candidate! Take some time to critically analyze each candidate and make your decision based on that...People blindly voting along party lines is part of the reason Bush won a second term in the first place. I, for one, agree with much of what McCain has to say (though I find myself disagreeing with quite a lot, as well); this endless partisan bickering from both sides is hindering the much-need cooperation between conservatives and liberals that this country so desperately needs (and that McCain, by the way, has an extensive history of actively promoting, one of the many differences between him and Bush).
Mr. Nunley
posted 5/14/08 @ 12:09 PM PST
Originally posted byJason
How is it that I, a liberal (whom Brett Nunley feels the need to collectively critcize in almost every piece of writing I have ever read from him
That's not fair at all. A large portion of my polemics are reserved for feminists.
I know this is an Internet medium, but people's names appear in letters to the editor, so they should take responsibility for what they say on these boards as well. Just a thought......
Michael
posted 5/14/08 @ 9:51 AM PST
Really Mike? Could you have come up with a less original post? You are like the second grader who says 'no you are'. Why would it matter to Brett Nunley or Wozich that Bush supports the same kind of ethanol that Obama does? If anything it furthers Wozich's point: many more people in the world are starving now because of our ethanol projects than were in the past.
Mike
posted 5/14/08 @ 11:05 AM PST
Originally posted byMichael
Really Mike? Could you have come up with a less original post? You are like the second grader who says 'no you are'. Why would it matter to Brett Nunley or Wozich that Bush supports the same kind of ethanol that Obama does? If anything it furthers Wozich's point: many more people in the world are starving now because of our ethanol projects than were in the past.
If that's the conclusion you've reached, you too have more research to do. Many more people are starving today for a number of reasons, and the increased production of corn for ethanol purposes is only one of those. Many experts agree that the rising cost of transportation and production contribute more to the rising cost than fuel-based agriculture ever will.
More people are starving today because the world is reeling from the effects of an uneven capitalist growth model which does not care for the poor peoples of the world who cannot afford to purchase the market's offerings. That we're in this situation at all stems from our inability to differentiate between susbsistence living and poverty. While many of these now impoverished countries once survived through subsistence agriculture, they now face serious poverty.
So to suggest that many more people in the world are starving today because of ethanol, is ludicrous.
I look forward to your reply!
Carson
posted 5/15/08 @ 2:37 AM PST
Originally posted byMichael
Really Mike? Could you have come up with a less original post? You are like the second grader who says 'no you are'. Why would it matter to Brett Nunley or Wozich that Bush supports the same kind of ethanol that Obama does? If anything it furthers Wozich's point: many more people in the world are starving now because of our ethanol projects than were in the past.
I agree with Mike. How pompous is it to think that the USA is the beacon of hope for starving populations across the globe? The majority of food aid given out through the government is through USAID and public Law 480, which is actually very lucrative for US farmers, and domestic shipping companies. Aid often takes a year or more to arrive (have you noticed media coverage on how aid we are "trying" to get to Burma will almost certainly be too late. Our food aid also undercuts local producers and exacerbates poverty in the long term because it is a quick fix. The European Union has adopted a policy of buying local grain, since many of these starving countries around the world are in fact net exporters of grain their populations cannot pay for. It is ridiculous to think the US somehow acts as a guardian angel of good will and charity. We have always mostly for political gain when it comes to foreign affairs. Most of our aid goes to strategic allies such as Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
As commented on earlier, Wozich's main point is invalid; Ethanol production has little to no effect on how much grain we produce or give away to needy people.
Wozich needs to look into doing more research for his pieces than the rudimentary google search. It's ignorant, baseless opinions such as his that can be so harmful, especially when it is distributed to the masses.
And we are all Americans by the way. Wouldn't it be nice if we all got along because we have the same common interests? America wasn't always so divided, Liberals and Conservatives are labels we created ourselves, not everyone must conform to one of the other. I think people need to be more open minded.
Linda
posted 5/14/08 @ 2:22 PM PST
Your statement: "Senator Obama, I know that you are just a politician, and you got to where you are by telling the people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that your Harvard education has taught you effective foreign policy."
Think deeper on this statement. The 'you got to where you are' should be dissected thoroughly. He has been hand picked to be where he is. The real question is for who's agenda. This is what makes him dangerous. Yes, he is but a smooth talking politician. He was recruited to Chicago by Rezko's contact.
As an adult man and woman, Obama and wife are capable of making decisions about their affiliations. But his kids aren't. How can a man justify the racial indoctrination of his two daughters through Church on Sunday, but on Monday say he is an agent of 'change'.
And then there is the subject of documented lack of leadership on 'change' and reaching across the aisle to unite the parties. One just has to review the skirmish Obama set off with his letter to McCain in Feb 2006. It was McCain that reached across the aisle to bring in the freshman Senator on Ethics Reform upon request from Obama. This is an example of Obama's inability and desire to make changes or unite.
http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/
Margaret Thatcher
• In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.
Think deeper on this statement. The 'you got to where you are' should be dissected thoroughly. He has been hand picked to be where he is. The real question is for who's agenda. This is what makes him dangerous. Yes, he is but a smooth talking politician. He was recruited to Chicago by Rezko's contact.
As an adult man and woman, Obama and wife are capable of making decisions about their affiliations. But his kids aren't. How can a man justify the racial indoctrination of his two daughters through Church on Sunday, but on Monday say he is an agent of 'change'.
And then there is the subject of documented lack of leadership on 'change' and reaching across the aisle to unite the parties. One just has to review the skirmish Obama set off with his letter to McCain in Feb 2006. It was McCain that reached across the aisle to bring in the freshman Senator on Ethics Reform upon request from Obama. This is an example of Obama's inability and desire to make changes or unite.
http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/
Margaret Thatcher
• In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.
Nica
posted 5/14/08 @ 4:15 PM PST
Here are some sites for all to read and be informed of the truth. Senator Obama is for ALL AMERICANS!!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/17798874.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/17798874.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
SamP
posted 5/20/08 @ 1:39 AM PST
Originally posted byNica
Here are some sites for all to read and be informed of the truth. Senator Obama is for ALL AMERICANS!!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
Okay. NICA--This DailyKos post has been DEBUNKED so many times it's embarrassing--Most recently by NEWSWEEK
"Substance Abuse" Obama's Fictitious legislative accomplishments
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976/page/1
The guy did not pass 800 pieces of legislation--he has passed 2 in the Senate and 26 in the IL state legislature. In the IL state legislature it was ALL in the last year (google: "Obama & Me" by Todd Spivetz for info on how Obama padded his resume)In the Senate--1) to promote democracy in the African Congo 2) to name a post office. Clinton has passed 54 bills and has accomplishments like keeping the 'morning after' pill, safe, legal and over the counter.
Obama voted "present" 130 times in the IL legislature and claims he pushed the wrong button 7 times (when he promised both sides they had his vote)
ALL HAT- NO CATTLE
ALL WHISTLE; NO PADDLE =OBAMA
Nica
posted 5/14/08 @ 4:22 PM PST
Senator Obama is for ALL AMERICANS and welcomes our suggestions on any issue (go to his website: barackobama.com). Please read the sites below for information that reflects the truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/17798874.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/17798874.html
Daniel
posted 5/15/08 @ 4:09 PM PST
This is THE moment of truth for everyone in Oregan.Do not listen to the Media this race will have a few more surprises and turns so Vote for the Lady that can defeat Senator MCCain in November.She will make you very proud.Don't fall for all the snow that is being dropped in ads.The Vote that will matter the most.Senator Hillary Clinton.
Summer Glau
posted 5/17/08 @ 12:49 AM PST
Oh Brett, at first you seemed so charismatic with your pithy remarks about how facts are "too old-fashioned for liberals". I was intrigued, and even though I disagree with your point of view I continued to explore it in the off chance that, perhaps, it was valid.
As I got to the end of what I had begun to realize was a particularly convoluted diatribe, I found that I still had a shred of respect for you as, despite your ideas being utterly worthless, you had taken your time to speak your mind. I read further down the page and after an accurate (however stereotypically presented) post by "Mike" I discovered your response. I have come to the conclusion that both of you represent the problem that America faces. In one regard Mike is correct -- the Bush Administration unequivocally furthered the use of cellulostic ethanol; conservative media (which I would assume you'd trust) confirms this: "President Bush signed energy legislation last year that requires a major increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022." (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/gm-partner-second-ethanol-startup/). Alas, one can't *try* to be facetious: one either is or is not and, as "facetious" is defined as "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor", both of your arguments are rendered invalid.
The final nail in your tiny young-republican coffin is your closing sentence, in which you feel the need to ask Mike for his last name. For humor's sake, I feel compelled to reference "V for Vendetta":
Evey Hammond: "Who are you?"
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask."
Evey Hammond: "Well I can see that."
V: "Of course you can, I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is."
The internet, Brett, is anonymous by nature. Americans (myself included) pride ourselves on the fact that we embrace freedom of speech without retribution. And yet somehow you have the audacity, nay, the *IGNORANCE* to ask Mike to provide his true identity? For what purpose? The only thing that you need to know is that he is human and has taken the time to compose a response.
Finally, I close with advice to each of you. Mike: Do not rise to others' taunts. You think your cleverly-worded, sarcastic rebuttal makes you a better liberal? It doesn't; the facts do. Brett: You're frankly (pardon my French) full of shit. Maybe if you took the time to research the "facts" that the media appears to *spoon-feed* to you you'd be able to get into a debate with one of those liberals you seem to despise so much and actually *win*. I urge you to research who you so blindly defend, as you seem to put so much emphasis on things as simple as names.
-- Summer Glau
As I got to the end of what I had begun to realize was a particularly convoluted diatribe, I found that I still had a shred of respect for you as, despite your ideas being utterly worthless, you had taken your time to speak your mind. I read further down the page and after an accurate (however stereotypically presented) post by "Mike" I discovered your response. I have come to the conclusion that both of you represent the problem that America faces. In one regard Mike is correct -- the Bush Administration unequivocally furthered the use of cellulostic ethanol; conservative media (which I would assume you'd trust) confirms this: "President Bush signed energy legislation last year that requires a major increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022." (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/gm-partner-second-ethanol-startup/). Alas, one can't *try* to be facetious: one either is or is not and, as "facetious" is defined as "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor", both of your arguments are rendered invalid.
The final nail in your tiny young-republican coffin is your closing sentence, in which you feel the need to ask Mike for his last name. For humor's sake, I feel compelled to reference "V for Vendetta":
Evey Hammond: "Who are you?"
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask."
Evey Hammond: "Well I can see that."
V: "Of course you can, I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is."
The internet, Brett, is anonymous by nature. Americans (myself included) pride ourselves on the fact that we embrace freedom of speech without retribution. And yet somehow you have the audacity, nay, the *IGNORANCE* to ask Mike to provide his true identity? For what purpose? The only thing that you need to know is that he is human and has taken the time to compose a response.
Finally, I close with advice to each of you. Mike: Do not rise to others' taunts. You think your cleverly-worded, sarcastic rebuttal makes you a better liberal? It doesn't; the facts do. Brett: You're frankly (pardon my French) full of shit. Maybe if you took the time to research the "facts" that the media appears to *spoon-feed* to you you'd be able to get into a debate with one of those liberals you seem to despise so much and actually *win*. I urge you to research who you so blindly defend, as you seem to put so much emphasis on things as simple as names.
-- Summer Glau
Nunley
posted 5/20/08 @ 8:48 PM PST
Originally posted bySummer Glau
Oh Brett, at first you seemed so charismatic with your pithy remarks about how facts are "too old-fashioned for liberals". I was intrigued, and even though I disagree with your point of view I continued to explore it in the off chance that, perhaps, it was valid.
As I got to the end of what I had begun to realize was a particularly convoluted diatribe, I found that I still had a shred of respect for you as, despite your ideas being utterly worthless, you had taken your time to speak your mind. I read further down the page and after an accurate (however stereotypically presented) post by "Mike" I discovered your response. I have come to the conclusion that both of you represent the problem that America faces. In one regard Mike is correct -- the Bush Administration unequivocally furthered the use of cellulostic ethanol; conservative media (which I would assume you'd trust) confirms this: "President Bush signed energy legislation last year that requires a major increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022." (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/gm-partner-second-ethanol-startup/). Alas, one can't *try* to be facetious: one either is or is not and, as "facetious" is defined as "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor", both of your arguments are rendered invalid.
The final nail in your tiny young-republican coffin is your closing sentence, in which you feel the need to ask Mike for his last name. For humor's sake, I feel compelled to reference "V for Vendetta":
Evey Hammond: "Who are you?"
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask."
Evey Hammond: "Well I can see that."
V: "Of course you can, I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is."
The internet, Brett, is anonymous by nature. Americans (myself included) pride ourselves on the fact that we embrace freedom of speech without retribution. And yet somehow you have the audacity, nay, the *IGNORANCE* to ask Mike to provide his true identity? For what purpose? The only thing that you need to know is that he is human and has taken the time to compose a response.
Finally, I close with advice to each of you. Mike: Do not rise to others' taunts. You think your cleverly-worded, sarcastic rebuttal makes you a better liberal? It doesn't; the facts do. Brett: You're frankly (pardon my French) full of shit. Maybe if you took the time to research the "facts" that the media appears to *spoon-feed* to you you'd be able to get into a debate with one of those liberals you seem to despise so much and actually *win*. I urge you to research who you so blindly defend, as you seem to put so much emphasis on things as simple as names.
-- Summer Glau
There is little we can do when an intellectual juggernaut like "Summer" (Sara Gwin? Same initials) comes along board.
All I said was that Obama is considered the most liberal senator we have, so how can he cross over party lines? If I had said anything too piquant, I'm sure someone else would have responded with something eloquent. Instead, I am subject to "Summer's" obloquy about my "full of shit" remarks while she refuses to bring anything new to the table other than typical leftist singsong.
Yes, I think people should leave their names on this discussion board because I believe in taking responsibility for what you say. "Summer," being a typical liberal, loves the anonymity of the Internet because she can hide behind her remarks and make a vehement denial of personal responsibility. So "Summer" is afraid of retribution? Gees, I'm flattered. What is it that she thinks I'll do if I find out who my online emissaries are? Well, probably exactly what I do now which is let you talk.
BTW, who did I "blindly defend?" You sound an awful lot like a feminist when you argue, but thanks for giving me something to laugh about nonetheless.
Semper Fi.
Shane
posted 5/19/08 @ 12:25 PM PST
Can some of you please enlighten me on how you agree with barack obama's health care policies?
i need to go to the doctor, because I broke my leg while I was drunk. My friend is going with me, he is going to rack up a $250 dollar bill because he has a cold. When you reply leave your address so I can send the bill. I am so happy I have a bunch of friends that will help me pay for our hard times.
i need to go to the doctor, because I broke my leg while I was drunk. My friend is going with me, he is going to rack up a $250 dollar bill because he has a cold. When you reply leave your address so I can send the bill. I am so happy I have a bunch of friends that will help me pay for our hard times.
SamP
posted 5/20/08 @ 1:25 AM PST
OBAMA is a FRAUD
With all this talk in the 'ether' about whether or not it will be "FAIR" if FL and MI are counted (and politically they've got to be)--and by the way it was SC, NH and IA who ALSO broke the rules--I've never seen that they had "permission" from the DNC.
I'm wondering-If Obama is nominated--can we live with a Nominee that was essentially determined by the CAUCUS SYSTEM (and same day registration states). I mean, what could be LESS representational than that? Where anyone can show up, and the whole process is full of intimidation, mismanagement, confusion and chicanery??? Shouldn't we ask ourselves what's going on when a state like TEXAS has a record turnout of voters--ONE candidate (Clinton) wins handily in a legal, organized system--but the OTHER candidate (Obama) wins in the caucuses (and therefore gets the delegates??? I mean, doesn't that SMELL BAD TO YOU?
And what about the rumor that "LOCAL" african-american OBAMA supporters were showing up in Wisconsin (the whitest place on earth) in interstate buses--and the blue haired ladies were afraid to challenge them & let them vote...
IS ANYONE ELSE HEARING THIS STUFF?
AND, ARE WE WORRIED??
With all this talk in the 'ether' about whether or not it will be "FAIR" if FL and MI are counted (and politically they've got to be)--and by the way it was SC, NH and IA who ALSO broke the rules--I've never seen that they had "permission" from the DNC.
I'm wondering-If Obama is nominated--can we live with a Nominee that was essentially determined by the CAUCUS SYSTEM (and same day registration states). I mean, what could be LESS representational than that? Where anyone can show up, and the whole process is full of intimidation, mismanagement, confusion and chicanery??? Shouldn't we ask ourselves what's going on when a state like TEXAS has a record turnout of voters--ONE candidate (Clinton) wins handily in a legal, organized system--but the OTHER candidate (Obama) wins in the caucuses (and therefore gets the delegates??? I mean, doesn't that SMELL BAD TO YOU?
And what about the rumor that "LOCAL" african-american OBAMA supporters were showing up in Wisconsin (the whitest place on earth) in interstate buses--and the blue haired ladies were afraid to challenge them & let them vote...
IS ANYONE ELSE HEARING THIS STUFF?
AND, ARE WE WORRIED??
John the Cynic
posted 5/22/08 @ 7:07 PM PST
Just always remember. Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Regardless if you win or lose, you're still retarded.
- Displaying 1 - 25 of 25
Alan Srout
posted 5/13/08 @ 1:28 AM PST
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/08may/article003.html