Clinton Campaign Confirms Planting Town Hall Question, Says It Won't Happen Again

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310316,00.html)

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum,” Elliethee said.

“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.

According to a report on the Grinnell University Web site, the Clinton campaign arranged for some of the questions for the candidate to be asked by college students:

"On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue....

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

The tape of the event shows that the question and answer went as follows:

Question: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."

The campaign's admission that it planted the question may be another blow to the New York senator's image as a trustworthy politician.

Clinton's critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.

Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday's revelation.

“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.

“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”

[BrAinPaiNt]

I find it humorous that this stuff goes on.

Reminds me of the gay porn reporter for the republicans and the recent fake Fema press conference.

[ConcordCowboy]

So they planted a question about Global Warming...GOOD...it needs to be talked about more.

I would venture to say that this is hardly the first time that a candidate had a question planted for them.

The question should have been..."Mrs Clinton why is it that so many people on the CowboysZone Political Forum deny that Global Warming is real in spite of a Mount Everest mountain full of evidence...are they in denial or just nuts or on Exxon's payroll?"

:D

[burmafrd]

No we re just smarter then you are.

[burmafrd]

And there are holes in the GloBal Warming Theory you could drive the Exxon Valdez through. Sideways.

[ConcordCowboy]

No we re just smarter then you are.

You'd never know it from your posts.

[ConcordCowboy]

And there are holes in the GloBal Warming Theory you could drive the Exxon Valdez through. Sideways.

The Exxon Valdez could drive thought the space between your ears sideways and not hit a brain...doesn't mean Global Warming isn't true.

[Doomsday]

All this does is confirm what we already knew, the Clinton's have no morals or integrity. Wow big shocker there!

[AtlCB]

If her supporters are anything like the people on this board, she could have sacrificed a young child on the stage and would have been forgiven. As long as the person is in the correct party and has close political views, they'll forgive anything.

[AtlCB]

So they planted a question about Global Warming...GOOD...it needs to be talked about more.

I would venture to say that this is hardly the first time that a candidate had a question planted for them.

The question should have been..."Mrs Clinton why is it that so many people on the CowboysZone Political Forum deny that Global Warming is real in spite of a Mount Everest mountain full of evidence...are they in denial or just nuts or on Exxon's payroll?"

:D
If it's such an important issue, don't you think someone in the audience would ask a question about AGW? Does Hillary have to trick people into voting for her?

[ConcordCowboy]

If her supporters are anything like the people on this board, she could have sacrificed a young child on the stage and would have been forgiven. As long as the person is in the correct party and has close political views, they'll forgive anything.

If she sacrifices the young child does she win the Presidency?

If yes...then I'm all for the sacrifice.

:D

[ConcordCowboy]

If it's such an important issue, don't you think someone in the audience would ask a question about AGW? Does Hillary have to trick people into voting for her?

How do you know that someone wouldn't have asked about it if the "plant" hadn't?

If that question is going to trick people...then they aren't to intelligent.

[AtlCB]

How do you know that someone wouldn't have asked about it if the "plant" hadn't?

If that question is going to trick people...then they aren't to intelligent.She should have let someone legitimately ask the question and stop being a fraud.

The problem I have with the plant goes toward her character.

[iceberg]

So they planted a question about Global Warming...GOOD...it needs to be talked about more.

I would venture to say that this is hardly the first time that a candidate had a question planted for them.

The question should have been..."Mrs Clinton why is it that so many people on the CowboysZone Political Forum deny that Global Warming is real in spite of a Mount Everest mountain full of evidence...are they in denial or just nuts or on Exxon's payroll?"

:D

most people don't disagree the world is getting warmer, we just disagree it's all due to mans evil and gluttonous nature. the world has been getting warmer and colder since it began. yet *this time* it's due to mankind.

go figure..

[iceberg]

If it's such an important issue, don't you think someone in the audience would ask a question about AGW? Does Hillary have to trick people into voting for her?

i'd have to agree. the fact that "politicians" keep bringing it up vs. a "concerned citizen" then is it a political tool or a real problem?

[ConcordCowboy]

most people don't disagree the world is getting warmer, we just disagree it's all due to mans evil and gluttonous nature. the world has been getting warmer and colder since it began. yet *this time* it's due to mankind.

go figure..

Oh you're a good guy... you realize the danger...you use these...

http://www.wpclipart.com/energy/CFL_light_1.png

:D

[ConcordCowboy]

She should have let someone legitimately ask the question and stop being a fraud.

The problem I have with the plant goes toward her character.

Oh I agree she shouldn't have planted the question...but it hardly makes her the worst person in the world.

And I'm sure it would put her on par with just about all of the rest of them.

[Doomsday]

Oh I agree she shouldn't have planted the question...but it hardly makes her the worst person in the world.

And I'm sure it would put her on par with just about all of the rest of them.

No but it does show she cant be trusted and it has to make you question her integrity. To say it puts her on par with others is a cop out, you are either honest or you are not honest.

[ConcordCowboy]

No but it does show she cant be trusted and it has to make you question her integrity. To say it puts her on par with others is a cop out, you are either honest or you are not honest.

Politicians honest...are you kidding me?:laugh2:

Or for that matter trustworthy.:laugh2:

I'm just not ready to get the noose out over this.

[iceberg]

Oh I agree she shouldn't have planted the question...but it hardly makes her the worst person in the world.

And I'm sure it would put her on par with just about all of the rest of them.

but it does call into question the motives behind GW, does it not? why is a politician ensuring we have to hear about it? there's already a lack of trust in the integrity behind GW and when the issue is forced into a debate or townhall meeting, it only legitimizes the complaints/concerns.

[jterrell]

I do not at all approve of planted questions or most other forms of dirty pool politicians and their campaign advisers use.

If Hillary has a quality that I must "overcome" in supporting her, it is the ends justify the means ride she will go on.

As to GW itself, the fact Hillary thinks it is worthy of a planted question (presumably because she has such a good answer) is a very good thing and again goes to show that the majority of people understand our environment is an issue.

AGW = alien brain implants.

[Ben_n_austin]

I'll take a planted question any day over a guy who doesn't have any answers implanted in his own brain.....

http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/Lifevest_Duo_Back.JPG

[ConcordCowboy]

I'll take a planted question any day over a guy who doesn't have any answers implanted in his own brain.....

http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/Lifevest_Duo_Back.JPG

:laugh2:

[Ben_n_austin]

:laugh2:

These argument are really hard to make.

O, it's not looking good for the Republicans.

Vote Mike Gravel!!!!;)

[iceberg]

I do not at all approve of planted questions or most other forms of dirty pool politicians and their campaign advisers use.

If Hillary has a quality that I must "overcome" in supporting her, it is the ends justify the means ride she will go on.

As to GW itself, the fact Hillary thinks it is worthy of a planted question (presumably because she has such a good answer) is a very good thing and again goes to show that the majority of people understand our environment is an issue.

AGW = alien brain implants.

um...it's more AMITC - anti-mankind is the cause. to be 100% certain anyway. find me ONE PERSON IN HERE who says the world isn't getting warmer.

again - that isn't the issue.

the cause of it is the issue.

[ConcordCowboy]

but it does call into question the motives behind GW, does it not? why is a politician ensuring we have to hear about it? there's already a lack of trust in the integrity behind GW and when the issue is forced into a debate or townhall meeting, it only legitimizes the complaints/concerns.

I don't know why she did it and it was wrong and dumb...if only for the fact that it just gives people a chance to take free shots at her. Never give people free shots at you no matter who you are.

Maybe she's ensuring we hear about it because it's important to her and she wanted to make sure that it was brought up.

I don't have a problem at all about the subject that was brought up...none what so ever...the way she had it brought up...OK...but again as I've said before ANY time that Global Warming or the environment are put on the front stage is great and fine with me...no matter how it's done.

[iceberg]

I don't know why she did it and it was wrong and dumb...if only for the fact that it just gives people a chance to take free shots at her. Never give people free shots at you no matter who you are.

Maybe she's ensuring we hear about it because it's important to her and she wanted to make sure that it was brought up.

I don't have a problem at all about the subject that was brought up...none what so ever...the way she had it brought up...OK...but again as I've said before ANY time that Global Warming or the environment are put on the front stage is great and fine with me...no matter how it's done.

fair enough on the top part.

the trouble is if her motivations are to use the environment as an issue - say in the same manner bush used iran, is "anything she does" still ok now?

you speak of trust issues for bush and he deserves them because of his own actions. i'm not going to excuse his lying - it wrong. but it NEVER gave "the opposition" the "ok" to lie. some just seem so happy it won't be bush they don't care who it is. to me that's more dangerous than bush.

[jterrell]

um...it's more AMITC - anti-mankind is the cause. to be 100% certain anyway. find me ONE PERSON IN HERE who says the world isn't getting warmer.

again - that isn't the issue.

the cause of it is the issue.

I do know mankind is releasing chemicals into the air that are not good for us. That has nothing to do with GW but is fact nonetheless.

GW has become this big emotional issue that people can't get past to look at the common sense behind it. Sure we are hurting the environment. Will temps rise and fall, sure. Could the cooler periods become less cool then previous cool periods and warmer periods become more warm? Sure. Do we need our atmosphere to protect us from the sun's rays and its heat? Sure. Was anyone up in arms when it was called damaging the ozone layer? Not really. But as soon as it effects big business and folks get placed on payrolls to make it seem downright communistic to suggest we damage the environment you can't find a self-respecting neo-con anywhere who an do anything except freak out at the mere mention of global warming and then deny we ever have done harm to the atmosphere(guess they don't live and have never been in los angeles) or the environment. It's especially frustrating for me to argue with folks from Houston about this after seeing the port of Houston area.

In sum, yea we are a cause of environmental damage. Are we the direct and main cause of global warming? Do not know but I hope we are as we can control what we do but not random events.

[iceberg]

I do know mankind is releasing chemicals into the air that are not good for us. That has nothing to do with GW but is fact nonetheless.

GW has become this big emotional issue that people can't get past to look at the common sense behind it. Sure we are hurting the environment. Will temps rise and fall, sure. Could the cooler periods become less cool then previous cool periods and warmer periods become more warm? Sure. Do we need our atmosphere to protect us from the sun's rays and its heat? Sure. Was anyone up in arms when it was called damaging the ozone layer? Not really. But as soon as it effects big business and folks get placed on payrolls to make it seem downright communistic to suggest we damage the environment you can't find a self-respecting neo-con anywhere who an do anything except freak out at the mere mention of global warming and then deny we ever have done harm to the atmosphere(guess they don't live and have never been in los angeles) or the environment. It's especially frustrating for me to argue with folks from Houston about this after seeing the port of Houston area.

In sum, yea we are a cause of environmental damage. Are we the direct and main cause of global warming? Do not know but I hope we are as we can control what we do but not random events.

and every "agw" poster i've seen has also said we can and should do more for the environment.

makes you wonder where the argument is coming from.

[ConcordCowboy]

fair enough on the top part.

the trouble is if her motivations are to use the environment as an issue - say in the same manner bush used iran, is "anything she does" still ok now?

you speak of trust issues for bush and he deserves them because of his own actions. i'm not going to excuse his lying - it wrong. but it NEVER gave "the opposition" the "ok" to lie. some just seem so happy it won't be bush they don't care who it is. to me that's more dangerous than bush.

If she truly would do things to help the environment...and I mean REALLY help the environment then yes anything she does would be OK with me.

Sadly most politicians talk big about the environment on the campaign trail then win and forget all about it.

Helping the environment really can't be compared to possibly going to War with Iran. Did you mean going to war with Iraq, or were you talking about possibly going to war with Iran?

Either way helping the enviornment...good...getting into a unnecessary War...Very Bad.

I don't condone lying polititians...but I'm a realist...they all do it at some point or another...sad but true.

This planting a question is a time honored tradition in politics...it's a tempest in a teapot...it's nothing in the whole scheme of things.

Bush has set the bar pretty low...so it's going to take a very...very screwed up person to be more dangerous than Bush. I'm really not worried at all about that.

[jterrell]

and every "agw" poster i've seen has also said we can and should do more for the environment.

makes you wonder where the argument is coming from.

As I see it Ice, it is really a silly distinction caused by the labels.

Referring to AGW to me is like myself calling someone a Neo-Con. It defines the issue at a level beyond compromise.

This really should NOT be a political issue at all.
99% of us agree we should take some steps without overburdening our economy or tax rolls to alleviate our greenhouse gas emission and reduce our reluctance on oil. Everyone stating they agree on that and not typing vitriolic blogfulls of GW pro or con might actually get something done for once.

[iceberg]

If she truly would do things to help the environment...and I mean REALLY help the environment then yes anything she does would be OK with me.

Sadly most politicians talk big about the environment on the campaign trail then win and forget all about it.

Helping the environment really can't be compared to possibly going to War with Iran. Did you mean going to war with Iraq, or were you talking about possibly going to war with Iran?

Either way helping the enviornment...good...getting into a unnecessary War...Very Bad.

I don't condone lying polititians...but I'm a realist...they all do it at some point or another...sad but true.

This planting a question is a time honored tradition in politics...it's a tempest in a teapot...it's nothing in the whole scheme of things.

Bush has set the bar pretty low...so it's going to take a very...very screwed up person to be more dangerous than Bush. I'm really not worried at all about that.

then hillary is your person because she doesn't care what she has to do to get what she wants. this may sound "good" now, but it's also very dangerous when. this is my fear in hillary. when her views on "what" constitutes helping the environment change and or are different from yours, then what? you gave her carte blanche, right?

we should *all* be paying attention and looking for positive ways to influence and help along the way. unfortunately so many of us think our duty is over when we vote, or don't vote.

if bush wants to end terrorism anything he does is ok, right?

very dangerous mindset, as i see things.

[iceberg]

As I see it Ice, it is really a silly distinction caused by the labels.

Referring to AGW to me is like myself calling someone a Neo-Con. It defines the issue at a level beyond compromise.

This really should NOT be a political issue at all.
99% of us agree we should take some steps without overburdening our economy or tax rolls to alleviate our greenhouse gas emission and reduce our reluctance on oil. Everyone stating they agree on that and not typing vitriolic blogfulls of GW pro or con might actually get something done for once.

agreed. then why is a politician making sure we keep it alive and the fear going?

superpunk had a good point when he blasted his misunderstanding of mine. the focus is in the wrong place but we shouldn't say "who cares" about GW. we're just going about it all wrong.

and the politicians are milking it for all they can. do they really care or are they vote-hunting?

[AtlCB]

I do know mankind is releasing chemicals into the air that are not good for us. That has nothing to do with GW but is fact nonetheless.

GW has become this big emotional issue that people can't get past to look at the common sense behind it. Sure we are hurting the environment. Will temps rise and fall, sure. Could the cooler periods become less cool then previous cool periods and warmer periods become more warm? Sure. Do we need our atmosphere to protect us from the sun's rays and its heat? Sure. Was anyone up in arms when it was called damaging the ozone layer? Not really. But as soon as it effects big business and folks get placed on payrolls to make it seem downright communistic to suggest we damage the environment you can't find a self-respecting neo-con anywhere who an do anything except freak out at the mere mention of global warming and then deny we ever have done harm to the atmosphere(guess they don't live and have never been in los angeles) or the environment. It's especially frustrating for me to argue with folks from Houston about this after seeing the port of Houston area.

In sum, yea we are a cause of environmental damage. Are we the direct and main cause of global warming? Do not know but I hope we are as we can control what we do but not random events.
The ozone layer and AGW are different issues. CFC's damaging the ozone has much more difinitive science behind it than AGW. Many damaging CFC's (such as some propellants and refridgerants) are no longer sold in this country. You don't seem to grasp that many of us who don't believe in AGW want to protect our air, water, wetlands, forests, etc. from pollution and destruction. I believe that promoting this whole AGW argument takes the focus off of these more important, [b]proven[b] problems.

[AtlCB]

As I see it Ice, it is really a silly distinction caused by the labels.

Referring to AGW to me is like myself calling someone a Neo-Con. It defines the issue at a level beyond compromise.

This really should NOT be a political issue at all.
99% of us agree we should take some steps without overburdening our economy or tax rolls to alleviate our greenhouse gas emission and reduce our reluctance on oil. Everyone stating they agree on that and not typing vitriolic blogfulls of GW pro or con might actually get something done for once.
We are all for the reduction in emissions, because:
1. It reduces our dependance on foreign oil
and
2. It improves our air quality.

I'm always floored that some of our politicians continue to vote against more stringent CAFE standards.

[jterrell]

The ozone layer and AGW are different issues. CFC's damaging the ozone has much more difinitive science behind it than AGW. Many damaging CFC's (such as some propellants and refridgerants) are no longer sold in this country. You don't seem to grasp that many of us who don't believe in AGW want to protect our air, water, wetlands, forests, etc. from pollution and destruction. I believe that promoting this whole AGW argument takes the focus off of these more important, [b]proven[b] problems.

I actually do grasp it, the issue is the AGW nonsense in blogs distracts from any environmental efforts. Mentioning any eco-friendly actions gets one labled a fruit or anti-capitalist.

It is all perspective but the AGW guys actually believe the conspiracy is there to "create" some global warming fear while the truth is the conspiracy is to make you tune out on global warming and eco issues altogether so it can be business as usual.

What oil companies have done here is similar to what tobacco companies did for over a decade. They lie, cheat, steal to keep profits high then reluctantly admit the inevitable. In the end what they did was allow themselves a few more quarters of enormous profits before facing the music. And when it is all said and done? They are still in business and still making money.

[iceberg]

I actually do grasp it, the issue is the AGW nonsense in blogs distracts from any environmental efforts. Mentioning any eco-friendly actions gets one labled a fruit or anti-capitalist.

It is all perspective but the AGW guys actually believe the conspiracy is there to "create" some global warming fear while the truth is the conspiracy is to make you tune out on global warming and eco issues altogether so it can be business as usual.

What oil companies have done here is similar to what tobacco companies did for over a decade. They lie, cheat, steal to keep profits high then reluctantly admit the inevitable. In the end what they did was allow themselves a few more quarters of enormous profits before facing the music. And when it is all said and done? They are still in business and still making money.

this seems to keep the division alive and this mythical group of AGW guys linked to conspiracy theories only makes me wonder if you're not overreacting and "looking" for people to argue with.

how come hilliary can plant questions about it and it's ok - anything to keep the attention on GW alive, yet you're saying the focus on GW by the AGW is misguided and taking the focus off the real issues.

didn't hillary ensure GW was a topic of convo? wouldn't she then now be guilty of what you're accusing the AGW crowd of?

before we really dive into this - can you please show me ANY AGW person on this forum to start, anywhere else if you need to - who says we shouldn't focus on cleaning up the environment?

near as i can tell that "F THE ENVIRONMENT" crowd doesn't exist yet it's continually linked to the AGW crowd who also doesn't disagree it's getting warmer, just that mankind can kill a muti-million year old planet in 100 years or less.

again i don't see the argument unless you pick up a piece of the whole picture and argue the piece when most to all agree the whole (environment) needs our help and should get our attention.

do we want/need a clean environment? yes. any no's out there?

if no one says no i don't see where the dividing points are except for the ones we make in "how" we go about taking care of our planet.

[jterrell]

Ice,
I already condemned Hillary's planting of a question.

I do think we should hear what she has to say about the topic and I liked her response.

The "division" in my mind is between those who live in reality and those who have become corporate shills unintentionally.

Many of the articles referenced by the anti-global warming crowd have been taken offline because they have been proven false. The initial efforts to cloud the issue and question the science obviously worked well. But it is rapidly coming to an end with even Exxon admitting there is such a thing as Global Warming and there is evidence humans play a role in it. This is the corporation who has spent the most money financing anti-global warming studies and think tanks yet are now publicly admitting not only it's existence but it's human ties.

Further Bush, who was anti-global warming himself, has turned a corner and states his own council advises we must act on the global warming issue.

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect is the basic principle upon with global warming is founded. It is no a separate issue. It just isn't blogged about because it's excepted.

If the anti-global warming crew isn't against stricter regulations for corporations relating to the environment and isn't against addressing our reliance on oil then why all the crying over global warming as a hoax, scam et al????

What exactly is the scam? What is the downside?

Do we see 1 million blog posts about the "scam" to save the whales????

We are not part of the Kyoto Treaty... why???
We all support reducing greenhouse gas emissions right?

As stated in the treaty itself, The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

[iceberg]

Ice,
I already condemned Hillary's planting of a question.

I do think we should hear what she has to say about the topic and I liked her response.

The "division" in my mind is between those who live in reality and those who have become corporate shills unintentionally.

kinda a jacked up view, jt. why is your reality better than mine? why do your views contain more clarity than mine? if GW is agenda driven by evil politicians, then hilliary is just as bad as anyone for planting the question to keep it alive.

if GW is sidetracking us from the *real* issues, then she's doing what you denounce in keeping it alive regardless of whether or not you liked her answer. isn't that being a corp shill?

by defination that would seem to be:
Those who buy into the political stance of an issue and carry forth the mantra into reality.

i don't want to put democrats, republicans, neocons, whack-leftists or anything into the defination of "corp shill" - that again forces you to look at the pieces and not the picture. so your piece as a flower on it and my piece seems to be some form of a wall.

both are part of a bigger picture, neither worth arguing about.

if doing more for the environment is the issue, and GW is sidetracking us, then what hillary did is just as wrong as what you yell at bush for doing, only now you find ways to excuse it because hillary did it.

and this isn't "shill" status?

my main point in the end is i respect your views and normally find you very open to other thoughts. but to say you either do this or you're a corp shill - i found that arrogant and offensive. hopefully i explained why w/o being offensive in return.

Many of the articles referenced by the anti-global warming crowd have been taken offline because they have been proven false.

define "taken offline".

The initial efforts to cloud the issue and question the science obviously worked well. But it is rapidly coming to an end with even Exxon admitting there is such a thing as Global Warming and there is evidence humans play a role in it. This is the corporation who has spent the most money financing anti-global warming studies and think tanks yet are now publicly admitting not only it's existence but it's human ties.

and we have people, highly respected who say otherwise. the person who started the GW theories has already said he was wrong. it was in another thread in here. should we take him "offline" cause you don't agree? is he now a shill for having an opinion that differs from yours?

Further Bush, who was anti-global warming himself, has turned a corner and states his own council advises we must act on the global warming issue.

where? and does he say mankind *is* the sole reason? to say we're a part of it is a copout. cows farting in mass on a dairy farm could be considered a part of it simply because they're a part of the environment.

we're *all* a part of the environment and all have a role to play. we need to always work within our environment to know what to understand and what to do. but let me ask you - to "fix" global warming, what *exactly* do we do and can you tell me you're 100% positive this is the only way to salvation?

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect is the basic principle upon with global warming is founded. It is no a separate issue. It just isn't blogged about because it's excepted.

If the anti-global warming crew isn't against stricter regulations for corporations relating to the environment and isn't against addressing our reliance on oil then why all the crying over global warming as a hoax, scam et al????

because there are some people who want to yell FIRE FIRE and rush to do something NOW because SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

sure there could be a fire, but it could be a cookout. about a year ago i bought a new smoker and was burning out the inside and it was making a pletheora of smoke to where i had (2) neighbors shout from the other side of the fence if all was ok or do they need to call a firetruck.

what if they just said FIRE FIRE and called 'em? false alarm that the alarmists will do.

now, has the world gotten warm before? hell, continants can shift in time but the ice cap melting is our fault. did we also cause them to shift? how we can know for sure what we're doing is acting on what *we* have done and can control vs. what just is a normal occurance?

a volcano blowing up will do more damage in an hour than we can do in a hundred years.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050308_super_volcano.html

so now the earth is the bad guy and it can cause climate change on it's own with or without us. what is our encessant need to look for someone to blame? damn it if superpunk isn't looking smarter about this as i dig deeper.

What exactly is the scam? What is the downside?

Do we see 1 million blog posts about the "scam" to save the whales????

the climate change has a direct effect us on all. whales indirectly. which is naturally more popular? again, sidetracking to illustrate a piece of a puzzle and still wiffing on the picture itself.

We are not part of the Kyoto Treaty... why???
We all support reducing greenhouse gas emissions right?

As stated in the treaty itself, The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

great. so let's put the blame game of stereotypes and labels down and look into what we can do to work within our environment. let's quit calling people "shills" just because they believe differently. let's quit looking for the holes in someone elses argument and find the value in what they say regardless.

*both* sides to this argument have very good points, and holes / gaps. neither is bulletproof or this wouldn't be an issue, would it? smart people on both sides disagree. namecalling isn't going to help.

working to a concensus on what we can do *will* help.

[ConcordCowboy]

then hillary is your person because she doesn't care what she has to do to get what she wants. this may sound "good" now, but it's also very dangerous when. this is my fear in hillary. when her views on "what" constitutes helping the environment change and or are different from yours, then what? you gave her carte blanche, right?

I'm sure that Hillary and I will disagree on how to go about fixing the enviornment...in fact I know we will and already do...because she will never go as far or as extreme as I would want.

But I understand that and realize that my expectations will probably never be met by ANY politician...the fact that she is taking about Global Warming is a good start...it only took Bush what 7 YEARS to admit to it.

That was seven years wasted. I'm more than sure Hilliary will do better than that. Not just on Global Warming but other environmental issues as well.

we should *all* be paying attention and looking for positive ways to influence and help along the way. unfortunately so many of us think our duty is over when we vote, or don't vote.

Very true.

if bush wants to end terrorism anything he does is OK, right?


Well he did and it has cost us over half a billion dollars and thousands of lives.

So no Bush gets no leeway.

Against comparing doing something about terrorism to doing something about the environment is not a good comparison...unless helping the environment will cost us thousands of lives with no end in site.

[iceberg]

I'm sure that Hillary and I will disagree on how to go about fixing the enviornment...in fact I know we will and already do...because she will never go as far or as extreme as I would want.

But I understand that and realize that my expectations will probably never be met by ANY politician...the fact that she is taking about Global Warming is a good start...it only took Bush what 7 YEARS to admit to it.

That was seven years wasted. I'm more than sure Hilliary will do better than that. Not just on Global Warming but other environmental issues as well.

Very true.

Well he did and it has cost us over half a billion dollars and thousands of lives.

So no Bush gets no leeway.

Against comparing doing something about terrorism to doing something about the environment is not a good comparison...unless helping the environment will cost us thousands of lives with no end in site.

my comparison is more to your point of "i don't care what she does as long as she works on the environment."

you see - i DID NOT SAY it was ok to kill people with no end in site. i did not say it would be ok to invade iraq. i did not say it would be ok to lie. i did not say a lot of things.

i took a "good" generic blanket statement and said "bush will end terrorism" not bush will kill people, start a questionable war with more questionable validation. i didn't say any of that. i'm only saying the carte blanche "i don't care" is a bad attitude and will backfire. but the people on "her" side will put on blinders for as long as they can and/or truly believe it when just a few short years ago they yelled at the bush supporters for the very same thing.

now if we're going to blame bush for 7 years of stupidity on the subject, we must blame every president since 1900.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm

hell, let's slap carter around too, while we're at it.

Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

but by all means, let's rag on bush when apparantely there have been people saying this could be an issue since before 1900.

my point comes back to - maybe mankind is causing it, maybe not. more "unbiased" research will need to be done and that's SO HARD TO DO with both parties leeching on it for votes.

[jman]

If she sacrifices the young child does she win the Presidency?

If yes...then I'm all for the sacrifice.

:D

Yep, and if she does win the Presidency more than that will be sacrificed.

Of everything this counrty needs, another Clinton in the White House aint one of them.

[jterrell]

kinda a jacked up view, jt. why is your reality better than mine? why do your views contain more clarity than mine?

I actually view your takes in general politically to be very moderate. I find you quite easy to discuss things but....
This is simple. Because my take is based on actual facts and current points of view from not only the leading scientific bodies but also from the same people who helped provide your view.

It's like Goose saying in the pre-season the Giants were the best team in the NFC. Some Giants fan(or heck some giants players, roffle) keeps using that as his basis for the belief the NYFG are better than Dallas, even after seeing we won two games by double digits and Goose himself asserts now that we are better.

I understand you want to be apprehensive about the concept. I get that. I am not arguing against a healthy skepticism. I am also arguing that you can't base that skepticism on dated and convoluted nonsense then actually believe there is some conspiracy to promote global warming as an issue. That isn't just ludicrous it's counter-intelligent.

This is a world wide issue and the truth is evident to all whom have studied it. We still get nonsensical stuff about this data or that data was wrong or whatever but no one has indicated greenhouse gases are not dangerous, no one has indicated the ice caps are not melting, no one has indicated sea level isn't rising. NO ONE.

I trust Hillary because she is intelligent. Far more so than our current President. She will look at future ramifications regarding our scientific policies. She will likely get us in signed on to the Kyoto Treaty.

I appreciate her experience as both First Lady and US Senator. I trust she will have the best presidential adviser alive in Bill Clinton. I trust she will build relations with other countries and also play hardball when needed.

She is tough, she is not above a little dirty work and I'd gladly be in a bunker with her any day of the week.

[iceberg]

I actually view your takes in general politically to be very moderate. I find you quite easy to discuss things but....
This is simple. Because my take is based on actual facts and current points of view from not only the leading scientific bodies but also from the same people who helped provide your view.

It's like Goose saying in the pre-season the Giants were the best team in the NFC. Some Giants fan(or heck some giants players, roffle) keeps using that as his basis for the belief the NYFG are better than Dallas, even after seeing we won two games by double digits and Goose himself asserts now that we are better.

I understand you want to be apprehensive about the concept. I get that. I am not arguing against a healthy skepticism. I am also arguing that you can't base that skepticism on dated and convoluted nonsense then actually believe there is some conspiracy to promote global warming as an issue. That isn't just ludicrous it's counter-intelligent.

This is a world wide issue and the truth is evident to all whom have studied it. We still get nonsensical stuff about this data or that data was wrong or whatever but no one has indicated greenhouse gases are not dangerous, no one has indicated the ice caps are not melting, no one has indicated sea level isn't rising. NO ONE.

I trust Hillary because she is intelligent. Far more so than our current President. She will look at future ramifications regarding our scientific policies. She will likely get us in signed on to the Kyoto Treaty.

I appreciate her experience as both First Lady and US Senator. I trust she will have the best presidential adviser alive in Bill Clinton. I trust she will build relations with other countries and also play hardball when needed.

She is tough, she is not above a little dirty work and I'd gladly be in a bunker with her any day of the week.

but there are *facts* on both sides. so before i go on, i'd like to clarify what you mean by:

Many of the articles referenced by the anti-global warming crowd have been taken offline because they have been proven false.

offline? proven false? what do you mean by offline and how were "facts" proven false when by nature science is based on theory and speculation "based" off facts that can change, thereby changing the view science has?

[ConcordCowboy]

you see - i DID NOT SAY it was ok to kill people with no end in site. i did not say it would be ok to invade iraq. i did not say it would be ok to lie. i did not say a lot of things.

Sorry if it came across like that but I didn't say or think that you would be OK with anyone of those things.

My point was Giving someone carte blanche to wage war on terrorism and the terrible things that will come with it...like soldiers deaths is totally different than giving someone carte blanche to try and fix the enviornment...as in ones a life and death situation and the other isn't. At least not immediately:D

I took a "good" generic blanket statement and said "bush will end terrorism" not bush will kill people, start a questionable war with more questionable validation. i didn't say any of that. I'm only saying the carte blanche "i don't care" is a bad attitude and will backfire. but the people on "her" side will put on blinders for as long as they can and/or truly believe it when just a few short years ago they yelled at the bush supporters for the very same thing.

now if we're going to blame bush for 7 years of stupidity on the subject, we must blame every president since 1900.

hell, let's slap carter around too, while we're at it.

Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

but by all means, let's rag on bush when apparently there have been people saying this could be an issue since before 1900.

my point comes back to - maybe mankind is causing it, maybe not. more "unbiased" research will need to be done and that's SO HARD TO DO with both parties leeching on it for votes.

I have no problem blaming EVERY President (and for the record the only two times I have voted Democrat was against Bush...I voted for Republican every other time...including twice against Bill Clinton...so I have no real loyalty to the Democrats or the Clinton's) for not doing more to help the environment.

As I said before I will disagree with ALL Presidents because they will never go as far as I want and I know that...but I can always hope.:D

And in summary I think that Hillary is going to be with me on my way of thinking about how to take care of the environment that any Republican will be. Does that mean if she wins she won't disappoint me? Of course not.

But I've just had what will be 8 years of Bush and I know that he really could care less about the environment and I think that anyone on the Republican side be be just the same. JMO.

Now the environment isn't the only reason I will or will not vote for a canidate...but it's a big part to me.

[iceberg]

Sorry if it came across like that but I didn't say or think that you would be OK with anyone of those things.

My point was Giving someone carte blanche to wage war on terrorism and the terrible things that will come with it...like soldiers deaths is totally different than giving someone carte blanche to try and fix the enviornment...as in ones a life and death situation and the other isn't. At least not immediately:D



I have no problem blaming EVERY President (and for the record the only two times I have voted Democrat was against Bush...I voted for Republican every other time...including twice against Bill Clinton...so I have no real loyalty to the Democrats or the Clinton's) for not doing more to help the environment.

As I said before I will disagree with ALL Presidents because they will never go as far as I want and I know that...but I can always hope.:D

And in summary I think that Hillary is going to be with me on my way of thinking about how to take care of the environment that any Republican will be. Does that mean if she wins she won't disappoint me? Of course not.

But I've just had what will be 8 years of Bush and I know that he really could care less about the environment and I think that anyone on the Republican side be be just the same. JMO.

Now the environment isn't the only reason I will or will not vote for a canidate...but it's a big part to me.

fair enough. my main point is giving *anyone* carte blanche is dangerous and a bad idea. that's all.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yep, and if she does win the Presidency more than that will be sacrificed.

Of everything this counrty needs, another Clinton in the White House aint one of them.

I'm sure that kittens and puppies will be sacrificed too.

What we really need is many more glorious years like we've had under Bush.

It's been pure bliss.

[ConcordCowboy]

fair enough. my main point is giving *anyone* carte blanche is dangerous and a bad idea. that's all.

In the whole scheme of things you probably are right.:D

[AtlCB]

I actually do grasp it, the issue is the AGW nonsense in blogs distracts from any environmental efforts. Mentioning any eco-friendly actions gets one labled a fruit or anti-capitalist.

It is all perspective but the AGW guys actually believe the conspiracy is there to "create" some global warming fear while the truth is the conspiracy is to make you tune out on global warming and eco issues altogether so it can be business as usual.

What oil companies have done here is similar to what tobacco companies did for over a decade. They lie, cheat, steal to keep profits high then reluctantly admit the inevitable. In the end what they did was allow themselves a few more quarters of enormous profits before facing the music. And when it is all said and done? They are still in business and still making money.
The environmental groups are also to blame. Because of their desire to push global warming and Kyoto, they have largely ignored other environmental problems. The founder of Greenpeace complained about this a while back. Everyone knows my objection to global warming, but I am a big proponent of strict regulations for clean air, water, preventing deforestation, preventing ozone damage, preserving wetlands, etc. Many in the environmental movement condemn me as a corporate shill or anti-environmentalist based on my objection to global warming and Kyoto.

[iceberg]

I'm sure that kittens and puppies will be sacrificed too.

What we really need is many more glorious years like we've had under Bush.

It's been pure bliss.

what we really need to do is to quit comparing 2 losers to each other as if one loser is better than the other. this reminds me of the carter / hutch wars.

just because one turd doesn't smell as bad as another doesn't make it any less of a turd.

[AtlCB]

We are not part of the Kyoto Treaty... why???
We all support reducing greenhouse gas emissions right?

As stated in the treaty itself, The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
The treaty has been a joke. The treaty does very little to reduce greenhouse gasses. Most countries are not reaching their goals, and the two countries with the largest increases in greenhouse gas emissions (China and India) are exempt.

[AtlCB]

I'm sure that kittens and puppies will be sacrificed too.

What we really need is many more glorious years like we've had under Bush.

It's been pure bliss.
The ABB argument simply doesn't work. The Dems used that in 2004 and brought out one of the worst politicians they could possibly find. :banghead:

I really don't want to replace Bush with another bad politician simply because he/she isn't Bush.

[iceberg]

The ABB argument simply doesn't work. The Dems used that in 2004 and brought out one of the worst politicians they could possibly find. :banghead:

I really don't want to replace Bush with another bad politician simply because he/she isn't Bush.

and that's where we're headed.

[ConcordCowboy]

The ABB argument simply doesn't work. The Dems used that in 2004 and brought out one of the worst politicians they could possibly find. :banghead:

I really don't want to replace Bush with another bad politician simply because he/she isn't Bush.

Look...I'm not going to be able to decide who is the candidate for their respective parties...it's most likely going to be a choice between Clinton or Giuliani.

You HAVE to make a choice at that point.

My Choice will be Clinton over Giuliani.

This isn't ABB this time...he's not running. But if a candidate wants to carry on or support the things that he's doing like the War in Iraq like I think Giuliani will do...then I don't want him...I want someone who believes like I do. And that's not Giuliani it will be Clinton...that's my choice.

If you don't like the choices well I can't help that...but a choice has to be made.

[AtlCB]

Look...I'm not going to be able to decide who is the candidate for their respective parties...it's most likely going to be a choice between Clinton or Giuliani.

You HAVE to make a choice at that point.

My Choice will be Clinton over Giuliani.

This isn't ABB this time...he's not running. But if a candidate wants to carry on or support the things that he's doing like the War in Iraq like I think Giuliani will do...then I don't want him...I want someone who believes like I do. And that's not Giuliani it will be Clinton...that's my choice.

If you don't like the choices well I can't help that...but a choice has to be made.
It's not a great choice for me either. If Guiliani wasn't for the war, he'd be an easy choice for me. If Clinton would drop universal health care, spending increases, and tax increases, I would vote for her.

[ConcordCowboy]

what we really need to do is to quit comparing 2 losers to each other as if one loser is better than the other. this reminds me of the carter / hutch wars.

just because one turd doesn't smell as bad as another doesn't make it any less of a turd.

As I just posted to AtlCb...unfortunately the candidates will be picked for us and we are going to have to make a choice like it or not.

It's obviously not perfect...but it's what we have.

[ConcordCowboy]

It's not a great choice for me either. If Guiliani wasn't for the war, he'd be an easy choice for me. If Clinton would drop universal health care, spending increases, and tax increases, I would vote for her.

If he'd drop that, he wouldn't be all that bad.

Enough for me to vote for him...probably not.:D

[iceberg]

As I just posted to AtlCb...unfortunately the candidates will be picked for us and we are going to have to make a choice like it or not.

It's obviously not perfect...but it's what we have.

you can choose by not voting. some say that's *not* the way to go but why should i vote when neither do anything for me? sure one will win but if the only thing they inspire is my apathy, not voting sends a message also.

if those not voting voted for an indie party -*then* it may help send that message.

[ConcordCowboy]

you can choose by not voting. some say that's *not* the way to go but why should i vote when neither do anything for me? sure one will win but if the only thing they inspire is my apathy, not voting sends a message also.

if those not voting voted for an indie party -*then* it may help send that message.

I don't believe in not voting. To me it's your duty as a citizen...and I'm not talking just about Presidential elections...I'm talking every election that you can vote in.

These people are going to have a direct effect on my life...I at least want my very small say in who that person will be.

[iceberg]

I don't believe in not voting. To me it's your duty as a citizen...and I'm not talking just about Presidential elections...I'm talking every election that you can vote in.

These people are going to have a direct effect on my life...I at least want my very small say in who that person will be.

you're right - but voting is more or less agreeing with that stance. voting for the lesser of 2 evils isn't sending a message.

*not* voting sends a message also, does it not? i get what you say but i just don't close the door there as to we must do this as our duty. in the end yes, i'll likely vote. but i can understand if you like neither, that also sends a message.

[jman]

I'm sure that kittens and puppies will be sacrificed too.

What we really need is many more glorious years like we've had under Bush.

It's been pure bliss.

Kittens and puppies? Naaa, just the likes of you and me and everyone in between, that's all.

But people like you and your fellow sheep don't use your ability to think enough.

With Bush not able to run for a third term, "many more glorious years" are not possible. Nor should there be. But you have set your agenda in concrete and have established yourself as one of many in the herd of sheep that think all your troubles will be over once Hillary is safely in office.

So go ahead and sell your soul to Hillary and the Democrat's because "at least it ain't Bush". That's the way a country becomes strong and fearless, right?

While you and your fellow sheep have sold your souls the rest of us will worry about our souls being sold to the Chinese or who ever becomes the highest bidder for our secrets.

National Security...Naaa, we don't need no national security. Middle East...Naaaa, no need to be there. It's all love and peace and National Health Care.

Good luck...we will all need it.

[iceberg]

note to self - when all else fails, just call people sheep cause they don't agree with me.

[jman]

note to self - when all else fails, just call people sheep cause they don't agree with me.

No...you miss interpreted me...most likely my fault. Too many beers after a long day at work.

Sheep are those who follow what's popular, not what is right.

I have no problem aligning myself with either party, if they have a "good" original idea. Which neither seem to have.

My problem comes when people want to blame it all on one person because it is convenient.

Both parties have equal blame in what is happening in this country. It's just become increasingly the norm to point out who ever is President and not take into consideration the government as a whole.

This is a representative government...but no one wants to get involved unless it is to place blame.

I'm just getting tired of it.

[iceberg]

No...you miss interpreted me...most likely my fault. Too many beers after a long day at work.

Sheep are those who follow what's popular, not what is right.

I have no problem aligning myself with either party, if they have a "good" original idea. Which neither seem to have.

My problem comes when people want to blame it all on one person because it is convenient.

Both parties have equal blame in what is happening in this country. It's just become increasingly the norm to point out who ever is President and not take into consideration the government as a whole.

This is a representative government...but no one wants to get involved unless it is to place blame.

I'm just getting tired of it.

maybe they follow it because they believe it - making it popular. do you believe in anything popular? majority? are you a "sheep" now?

be liking what is popular, we're all sheep at one time or another, right? i'd rather work to understand more than the initial view before i call someone a "follower", lemming or the like.

i agree with what you're saying but i don't agree it will get better by putting labels that offend people on them due to disagreeing with me. or liking something popular.

i don't want to place blame on the 'sheep' for being 'sheep' - i'd rather keep talking and learn more about them so we can find ways constructively to come together.

then again, i like running into windmills at full tilt.

[ConcordCowboy]

Kittens and puppies? Naaa, just the likes of you and me and everyone in between, that's all.

But people like you and your fellow sheep don't use your ability to think enough.

Yeah if Hillary gets elected you me and everyone in between are going to be sacrificed. Ever hear the word hyperbole?

Where did you get your facts from Karl Rove?

I'm a sheep? Look in the mirror...you'll see one.


With Bush not able to run for a third term, "many more glorious years" are not possible. Nor should there be. But you have set your agenda in concrete and have established yourself as one of many in the herd of sheep that think all your troubles will be over once Hillary is safely in office.

So go ahead and sell your soul to Hillary and the Democrat's because "at least it ain't Bush". That's the way a country becomes strong and fearless, right?

While you and your fellow sheep have sold your souls the rest of us will worry about our souls being sold to the Chinese or who ever becomes the highest bidder for our secrets.

National Security...Naaa, we don't need no national security. Middle East...Naaaa, no need to be there. It's all love and peace and National Health Care.

Good luck...we will all need it.

What agenda have I set in concrete except saying that I want the environment taken care of and no more of ANYONE that thinks like Bush.

You see I'll make it simple for you...It's going to probably be a choice between Clinton and Guiliani(which I have no say in)...therefore I have to make a choice and I'll pick Clinton...just a couple of reasons will be that Guiliani happens to agree with the War in Iraq just like Bush...I don't...pretty simple there...Clinton.

I think that Clinton will be better for the environment than Guiliani which of course is important to me...Pretty simple there...choice Clinton.

You see that's not a sheep there...that's a person taking into account what's important to them and voting for the person that best fits that profile...again pretty simple...Clinton.

For God's sake where did I say that all my troubles will be over when Clinton is in office?

The answer...I never did.

More hyperbole.

And don't come in here talking about National Security...for sake Rove and Libby leaked a CIA covert operatives name and put investigations that could be vital to National Security and possibly other covert agents lives at stake all to get back at Joe Wilson because he had the audacity to say that maybe some of the data for going to war with Iraq was flawed.

Talk about a breach of National Security...these two people were the closest people to the President and Vice President of the United States and they put their desire to go to war with Iraq ahead any thing that got in their way...including National Security.

Now what was that about sheep again?

[jterrell]

Hillary is going to be a great President.

When you list the presidents of the past 40 years Dumbya ranks bottom 3 (ahead of Nixon,Carter) second to last or last.

Bill ranks top 3 at worst.
Hillary has the most experience and the highest intellect of any of these candidates. She has the strongest education, the most diplomatic ties overseas, the most knowledge of the White House, the most knowledge of the current military situation because not only of what decisions Bill made but also because of her current Senate committee memberships.

Anyone throwing their arms up in the air over what will happen to us under Hillary hasn't been paying attention.

She is not warm and cuddly. She is not ethically superior but she will run the country much better.

Like Bill Parcells she may upset folks but she'll get this thing turned around. If she is no longer in office when we finally reap all the rewards of tough decisions she make I'll be ok with that. Hillary will be a godsend.

[AtlCB]

Hillary is going to be a great President.

When you list the presidents of the past 40 years Dumbya ranks bottom 3 (ahead of Nixon,Carter) second to last or last.

Bill ranks top 3 at worst.
Hillary has the most experience and the highest intellect of any of these candidates. She has the strongest education, the most diplomatic ties overseas, the most knowledge of the White House, the most knowledge of the current military situation because not only of what decisions Bill made but also because of her current Senate committee memberships.

Anyone throwing their arms up in the air over what will happen to us under Hillary hasn't been paying attention.

She is not warm and cuddly. She is not ethically superior but she will run the country much better.

Like Bill Parcells she may upset folks but she'll get this thing turned around. If she is no longer in office when we finally reap all the rewards of tough decisions she make I'll be ok with that. Hillary will be a godsend.
You have much more faith than I do. I would personnally rather have a politician that isn't from the beltway.

[jterrell]

You have much more faith than I do. I would personnally rather have a politician that isn't from the beltway.

That's an extremely popular desire but I just do not get it.
Once they are int he White House they will be inside the beltway and will be forced to make deals with all the Beltway politicians.

In another words the corruption is just around the corner.

Would you rather have:

a: a mentally or physically(health) challenged president who is lead by his advisors
b: a raw, young uncorrupted president who struggles to get anything accomplished but has high ideals
c: a take no prisoners ball buster who is politically saavy and experienced

c: might be the least fun or idealistic but imho gets the most good done for us a country.

[AtlCB]

That's an extremely popular desire but I just do not get it.
Once they are int he White House they will be inside the beltway and will be forced to make deals with all the Beltway politicians.

In another words the corruption is just around the corner.

Would you rather have:

a: a mentally or physically(health) challenged president who is lead by his advisors
b: a raw, young uncorrupted president who struggles to get anything accomplished but has high ideals
c: a take no prisoners ball buster who is politically saavy and experienced

c: might be the least fun or idealistic but imho gets the most good done for us a country.
I'll take B.

[jman]

Me sober this time...

I apologize for the sheep comment to ConcordCowboy. Uncalled for.

For the record...Don't like Bush and like Hillary even less. To me, it is a sad day for this country that the two candidates we may ultimately have to choose from are this polarizing and IMHO are such poor choices to run this country.

This country deserves better...I hope.

[iceberg]

Me sober this time...

I apologize for the sheep comment to ConcordCowboy. Uncalled for.

For the record...Don't like Bush and like Hillary even less. To me, it is a sad day for this country that the two candidates we may ultimately have to choose from are this polarizing and IMHO are such poor choices to run this country.

This country deserves better...I hope.

getting caught up in it is an easy thing to do. i've had to force myself to ask "what is the end result i want". if to argue online that's pretty easy. too easy. if to resolve issues, arguing won't usually get you there.

if only our politicians would take note. : )

for the record, i don't think we have much of a choice this time around. looking into ron paul right now to get more info on him.

[Doomsday]

Bill ranks top 3 at worst.

Maybe if your a bleeding heart liberal.

I would be curious to see who you have at 1 and 2 the last 40 years.

[ConcordCowboy]

Me sober this time...

I apologize for the sheep comment to ConcordCowboy. Uncalled for.



No problem...I've been called much worse here by Burm.:D

[jterrell]

Maybe if your a bleeding heart liberal.

I would be curious to see who you have at 1 and 2 the last 40 years.

thanks for asking.

personal list... hard to rate more than 30 years as I am not old enough to have lived day to day under JFK/LBJ.
So we'll start at 70 and I'll rank them all personally.


The Good
Clinton
Reagen

The Mediocre/Overshadowed
George Bush
Ford

The Suck
Carter
Dumb Bush
Nixon

Did I miss anyone?

BTW, I have been a Democrat about 7 years.
It would be quite a shock to all the guys on death row I wanna see fry, all the illegals I want to deport or nationalize and all the fundamentalists I wanna nuke that I am a bleeding heart.

[jterrell]

I'll take B.

Fair enough and I'd certainly rather have beer/bbq with Obama than Hillary but while I am drinking that beet and eating that bbq I want Hillary to be that bulldog running this country.

She has put herself on schedule to runt his country and she has the credentials and know how. I am ready to see how she does. I expect it to be quite well. I have every faith a Clinton can clean up a Bush mess because I have seen it all happen before:)

In 9 years Obama will make a fine President. :)