VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

04/18/26 11:10amLogin ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123[4] ]


Clatsop County Matters
Click on any of the pictures below to link you to a blog written by one of your neighbors, friends, colleagues, or info on a local agency or someone you are thinking of voting for

Welcome to Clatsop County Matters

While this was a forum to respectfully discuss those matters which concern the citizens who live, work and play in this small corner of the Pacific Northwest, the time has come to use a new board for our forum. We are moving our main discussion forum over to Clatsop County Matters'Dried Salmon Forum at Proboards. Please join us there. Sharing news and views of Clatsop County's agencies, governing bodies, businesses, schools, plans, projects and future.
Note posting agreement at bottom of page
Please, use this Voy forum for posting events

and this oneClassifieds for posting your items for sale.

The archives are still here (look up at the top of this page, over on the righthand corner, click on one of the numbered pages) to read and you can cut and paste them over to the other forum board. You can no longer reply to the threads. We hope to see you on the other forum board. Also, remember to visit the bloggers and other sites linked to on this page.
Clatsop County Matters blog


Subject: sign in front of church should be submitted to jay leno for utterly poor taste


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/11/06 4:28pm

it reads "for what you do he bleeds for you" as in the commercial, "for what you do, this bud's for you"

guess what church's reader board? where do they find this stuff? the joke section of
[> Subject: There used to be a song ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 9/06 3:00pm

... when I went to church camps, that was based off Budweiser's theme song. Only the words were SLIGHTLY changed, for a "more Christian" theme.

And when I worked at the Christian Conference Center in Cannon Beach, they wouldn't allow you to play any music unless it was by a "Christian artist". When Amy Grant left "Christian Rock" to become a secular artist, her music went from being okay to play - to being banned from playing. Even the songs she had recorded as a "Christian artist".

I don't see anything wrong with altering secular messages, to get a religious one across. But at a certain point, it becomes indicative of a religion trying to commercially sell itself - which indicates a spiritual sickness.
[> [> Subject: alcohol and this county


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 9/06 4:01pm

for christ's sake, literally! yes, get our attention to make us think about a certain point, and i guess if your someone who can only pray if your inside a building then maybe the message can intrigue you to come on in. but does someone driving by really say, "hey this pastors for me, he might even crack one open after the sermon and passem on out?" and is that the selling point this church wants to get out? i don't know. maybe i'll call and ask them what the point of that sign is? does that take courage? i've never done that. "hi, yeah, i was driving by and saw your sign and thought it was pretty tacky but anyhow i was wondering what you were thinking when you posted it? are you targetting the beer guzzlers?" what would you ask?
[> [> [> Subject: Too disrespectful although I see your point


Author:
Carrie
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 9/06 5:46pm

It is interesting how few people see the problem w/substance abuse in this county. Its refreshing to see someone else who does.

Did you see the event where they served alcohol at the fund raiser for the Oregon Youth Authority facility? WOW! Weird, that people do this in the name of the children!
[> [> [> Subject: Well ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/10/06 10:13am

... as one who used to have to come up with the message on a reader board, let me say that it's difficult to continually come up with short (but catchy) messages. And since that's the job of professional ad agencies, I admit to occassionally "stealing" some of their slogans.

IE; One week during the "Just do it" heyday, I put up the message "Jesus did it".

So, before you get all riled up, is this a continuing issue? Does this church constantly have alcohol-inspired messages on the board? If so, you should definitely talk to the pastor or one of their board members.
[> [> [> [> Subject: its an ongoing problem in this county


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/11/06 4:28pm

but seems like its not one that many want to confront or do anything about. see ya' at the beer garden this weekend and we can gripe about our kids looping w/the family car huh, sure hope i don't get busted tonight, hohoho?
Subject: Blog reopened


Author:
Jeff Hazen
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/11/06 9:58am

I have reopened by blog. Clink on the link above to get to it.
Subject: This Place Die Or What?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 5/06 2:07pm

Where did everybody go?
Subject: c/o republican planks


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 1/06 11:05am




Republicans - Please Take Back Your Party
by Thom Hartmann

Today's so-called Republicans have established a mind-numbing record at polluting the environment; bloating government; appointing crony partisans; pushing the nation into debt to fund tax cuts for the rich; legislatively catering to the world's largest corporations; opposing women's rights; kneecapping states, local communities, and schools; eviscerating constitutional protections of liberty at home; and devastating our nation's reputation abroad.

They try to re-write history - the biography of Thomas Jefferson on the www.whitehouse.gov website has been re-written to turn him into a man who had "assumed leadership of the Republicans," while the reality was that Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republicans and still exists today, called the Democratic Party. (The Republican Party is much more recent, having come into national existence in 1856.)

Corporate shills like former Enron lobbyist and current GOP chairman Ed Gillespie would have us think the Republican party was born in service to corporations. But Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was also the first president to actively use the power of government in support of striking workers.

In Lincoln's era, the idea of strikes was so novel the word "strike" was put in quotation marks in newspapers, but Lincoln was often on their side. "Labor," Lincoln wrote, "is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Republicans would do well to revisit the Republican Party's campaign platform of 1872, before the era of corporate personhood, as it may hold the seeds of their redemption.

The Republicans of 1872 didn't think that anybody should be appointed to high office just because he was a party hack or the son of the Secretary of State. Instead, they wrote in their platform, "Any system of civil service under which the subordinate positions of the government are considered rewards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing; and we, therefore, favor a reform of the system, by laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage, and make honesty, efficiency, and fidelity the essential qualifications for public positions."

They didn't think corporations - particularly big ones - should get the kinds of freebies that corporations today regularly demand for moving into a community. Instead, resources owned by We, The People should be held in trust for, or given to, human beings, as they wrote in their platform: "We are opposed to further grants of public land to corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain be set apart for free homes for the people."

The Republicans of 1872 felt that the national debt (from the Civil War) should be paid off as quickly as possible, and a budget must not only be balanced but show a surplus while at the same time paying pensions to retired persons. They were also protectionists, in favor of import duties and tariffs to protect working peoples' salaries and keep manufacturing jobs from moving offshore. They proclaimed in their platform:

"The [nation's] annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal [of the national debt]; and that revenue should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which [duties] should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country."

The Republicans of 1872, having just freed the slaves (in part, at least), also spoke to that era's women's struggle for equal rights. Their platform explicitly said:

"The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction; and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration."

The Republicans of 1872 had repealed most of Lincoln's wartime abrogations of civil rights, and opposed any other Patriot Act-like interferences with civil liberties. They were rediscovering the Bill of Rights, and said so in party platform plank sixteen:

"The Republican party proposes to respect the rights reserved by the people to themselves as carefully as the powers delegated by them to the States and the Federal government. It disapproves of the resort to unconstitutional laws for the purpose of removing evils, by interference with rights not surrendered by the people to either the State or National government."

The party platform said that Republicans would embrace only "modest patriotism" and "incorruptible integrity" in their leaders, because the nation's "honor" was, in that day, "kept in the high respect throughout the world."

The party noted that since it had first achieved national power with Lincoln's election, "During eleven years of supremacy it has accepted, with grand courage, the solemn duties of the time." Republicans had "emancipated four millions of slaves, decreed the equal citizenship of all, and established universal suffrage. Exhibiting unparalleled magnanimity, it [the Republican Party] criminally punished no man for political offenses," and tax "revenues have been carefully collected and honestly applied."

"This glorious record of the past is the party's best pledge for the future," the Republicans of 1872 wrote, blissfully unaware of how corrupt their party would become.

They added, perhaps presciently. "We believe the people will not entrust the government to any party or combination of men composed chiefly of those who have resisted every step of such beneficent progress."

In the years since then, the Republican Party has been seized by Ayn Rand utopians, Pat Roberson fundamentalists, and the largest and dirtiest of America's corporate elite. They've trashed the values of Lincoln and Eisenhower, rejected Jesus' words in Matthew 25, and turned our commons into a dumping ground while using our nation's treasury as a honey pot.

At the same time, there's a growing concern that George W. Bush's projected quarter-billion-dollar campaign war chest, and demonstrated willingness to use Big Lie techniques and October Surprise wars, will be enough to induce national amnesia in 2004, destroy the last vestiges of a civil society, and permanently turn our nation into the land of the observed and the home of the worried-about-the-terror-alert.

And, so, those of us "on the left" ask our Republican friends: Please take your party back from these fanatics, before it's too late for America to ever again be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a syndicated daily talk show that runs noon-3 ET in cities from coast to coast. www.thomhartmann.com

copyright 2003 Thom Hartmann
[> Subject: would the 1872 repubs go after Murtha?


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/ 1/06 11:05am

The “Swift Boat” veterans who grabbed national headlines in 2004 when they attacked John Kerry in his failed presidential bid now are turning their sights to Johnstown.

Their target is U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a critic of the Iraq war and a de facto spokesman on the subject for the national Democratic Party.

Armed as a new group – Veterans for the Truth – they’re bringing their campaign to “Redeploy John Murtha From Congress” to his backyard.

They plan to hold a national rally in Johnstown in October “to show their outrage at John Murtha over what he is saying about our troops,” state chairman and former Johnstowner Mark Parker said in a release.

Details of the rally will be outlined at a news conference at 11 a.m. Thursday in front of Murtha’s office at 647 Main St.

Murtha, who will not be in his district office Thursday, appears unfazed by the pending “Swift Boat’’ campaign.

He is scheduled that day to be in Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County, campaigning for Democrat Chris Carney, who’s running against incumbent Republican Don Sherwood in the 10th District.

In a statement released by his office, Murtha said, “Nobody has done more for the troops than I have.

“This is a policy difference, and everybody has the right to an opinion.”

Murtha is running for re-election against Diana Irey, a Washington County commissioner, who has been critical of Murtha’s comments about the war and what she sees as his lack of support for the troops.

The news conference will be held by Craig Minnick, an Iraq war veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, and Harry Beam, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Vietnam vet, both of Johnstown, and Parker, an Air Force veteran.

A guest at the news conference will be Larry Bailey, president of Veterans for the Truth. Bailey is a retired Navy captain and former commanding officer of the Naval Special Warfare Center. He co-authored the anti-Kerry book “Unfit for Command.”

Murtha, a retired Marine Reserve colonel, in 1974 became the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. He’s been known for his strong support of the military and on defense issues, working quietly behind the scenes with Republicans and Democrats alike.

But that changed late last year when – with mounting American casualties – he went public and called on the Bush administration to withdraw troops from Iraq and redeploy them nearby. His comments brought an eruption of emotions, both pro and con.

Bailey, in an interview from North Carolina, said he and other vets who were active in the 2004 Swift Boat campaign didn’t get interested in Murtha’s race until he went public about a Pentagon war crimes investigation.

In May, Murtha said the investigation would show that Marines had killed more than a dozen innocent civilians “in cold blood” Nov. 19 in the town of Haditha.

Bailey said those remarks were highly prejudicial “without any due process.”

At that point, Swift Boat veterans from the 2004 campaign were approached by Parker and other area vets about Murtha, Bailey said.

“We decided to get back together and put together a new organization to hold John Murtha accountable for what he said,” Bailey said.

Minnick said he and Beam have been discussing for “months and months” Murtha’s stands.

“We’re very tired of lies and distortions from Mr. Murtha on the Iraq war, and it’s time we get the correct information out” about the war, its purposes and the troops, he said.

The main speaker at the October rally is expected to be John O’Neil, a former Navy officer who served on Kerry’s swift boat during the Vietnam War. O’Neil was an active campaigner against Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Subject: under the thumb squash from Astoria's own Ralph Reed?


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/31/06 10:02pm

maybe it was really written by Paddy McGOPplant. I can't believe Glenn wants to take me on again.
--------
9 On Jul 20, 11:26 am, Glenn wrote:

Yawn.

Another non article and blatant president bashing from Lee.
Your website started out real well Tryan.
What happened? Why do you allow this garbage to be in guest form?

I do enjoy Walter’s articles fwiw.
----
I enjoy Walter's articles too.
[> Subject: And You Find It Necessary To Come Over Here To Complain?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 1:13pm

Get back over there 'Pinky' and tear Taggart to shreds!!!!!
[> [> Subject: It's Tryans site


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 1:38pm

If you want a cat fight between me and a superstitious old lady watch Fox.
[> [> [> Subject: Tryan Made The Bed He Sleeps In!


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 1:50pm

If I remember correctly, Tryan fielded an open invitation to 'All' to come and contribute articles to his site.

Well, that's what you are doing isn't it?

Taggart can excercise his freedom as well by not reading your crap if he doesn't like it.

I don't think any post you've made at that site has been dramatically disruptive on your part, just the noise of the same old windmill you're trying to capture and kill.

If Tryan were to fold to Taggart's whim he will definitely be deserving of what will come after.

Taggart take you on?

You know, your head could explode, you let it get too big.
[> [> [> [> Subject: You know, your head could explode, you let it get too big.


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 2:43pm

I don't know how to interpret that, so I think I'll file it.
[> Subject: Why do they think 100 human cells are innocent or guilty?


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 2:25pm

Tryan is probably very busy this time of the year. I'll bet he could use a guest contribution from Ayatollah Taggert, more than advice on how to run the blog.
[> [> Subject: Sanctimony?


Author:
protester
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 3:45pm

Please no
[> [> Subject: Dang, I'm the topic today!


Author:
THartill
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 4:22pm

I don't post for a few days and all hell breaks lose!
[> [> Subject: A suggestion for Tryan and Lee


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 10:01pm

Lee, you come off sounding bitchy, taking pot shots at Taggart (and him the aw shucks homegrown guy), and unless you want to restate your case against him each time you lose your own credibility, imho.

Tryan -might want to clarify where articles are placed. It seems a lot of opinion goes on the "front page" where maybe local news could go, that is if anyone would write it. Problem is, that would take talent (which definately leaves me out) and those with talent aren't reporting for free.

Maybe get some of the younger crowd somehow involved? Prizes? Best article w/local topic gets something of value w/the most votes being the winner? Or maybe get all of these blog writers to contribute one article a week for a month and you could give the winner free smoked fish for a year?
[> [> [> Subject: an explanation for Sandy


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 11:09pm

I guess I get bitchy when my opinion is called garbage on a neutral website by someone who doesn't value free expression, women's privacy,or the environment.

He was condescending to Tryan who is 10 times brighter than glenn ever hopes to be.

Tell me something about yourself, or I will naturally think you are another one of Patrick's personality.

Thanks for the input, anyway.
[> [> [> [> Subject: I don't care who you think I am


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/21/06 3:02pm

LOL!

You can not bully me. My style does not in the least resemble Patrick's and I do not care if you think I am anyone's alter ego.

This forum says respectful dialog yet with every other post you flout that request. This forum is for those who live, work or play here. When was the last time you were here?

This forum is for people who want to work towards making this a more livable community but you do nothing except complain without providing for any workable solutions, for the people here.

No, this is not being respectful or productive dialoging. Anyone taking the time to comment is atleast doing something, however you are just as condescending as Glenn can be. I KNOW how intelligent Tryan is, you don't need to tell me or confirm it for me since I am more likely to run into Tryan down at Josephson's then I am to you somewhere out of town, and can confirm it for myself or online by reading him.

I was making an observation because you are writing articles on Tryan's site and telling you, as a now author, how you would be more believable or persuasive for me as well as when you write here. Take it or leave it critisism. I'll not validate my existence for you since I am not a writer or a blogger. I am merely a poster to a forum that asks us to be respectful to one another, which is why I chose this forum.

If you delude yourself to think I am Patrick then I will take that into consideration on everything else you write about and wonder how much is a product of delusion. You can chose to RESPECTFULLY ignore my posts, since I have NOT been disrespectful of you before nor do I intend to be in the future, or you can respectfully comment to them but I am not validating my existence for you and I will not respond to name calling or any other bullying tactics.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: you took it wrong honey


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/21/06 3:47pm

guess you thought i was trying to be insult or rile you.
[> [> Subject: fetuses and blastocysts


Author:
god
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 11:52pm

If a christian considers them human he must also consider them sinful because of original sin, or the fall.
[> [> [> Subject: judge not the selfrighteous


Author:
god
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/22/06 7:37pm

A new tactic has emerged in the battle over abortion rights in the United States. The anti-choice website LifeNews.com is reporting that abortion opponents are purchasing clinics that offer abortions -- and then closing them down.

The article reports that the Pro-Life Majority Coalition in Chattanooga, TN won the auction of a facility that housed an abortion clinic. Abortion business have also been purchased and shut down, the article maintains, in Kansas, Nebraska and Florida.

Excerpts from the LifeNews.com article follow...

#
Abortion business have been purchased in states such as Kansas, Florida, Tennessee and Nebraska.

In one of the first cases the Pro-Life Majority Coalition of Chattanooga outbid a Tennessee abortion business for the right to own a local facility that had long been the sole place in town where abortions were done.

The buying of the building forced the abortion center to close and the site now houses the National Memorial for the Unborn, a memorial for all of the babies who died at the abortion center over the years.

More recently, pro-life advocates in Wichita, Kansas purchased the building that housed the Central Women's Services abortion facility.
[> [> [> [> Subject: aren't these anti-choice people mostly men?


Author:
god
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/22/06 7:42pm

or women who are obeying men?
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/23/06 7:53pm

my sister in law, very independent, supposedly, type does not believe in abortion at all while her husband does believe it is the woman's perogative and that choice should not be a legallity. If it is inside of one human being, that is the human being that determines how it lives or if it lives.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: it is aggravating when *they* don't think that this is a very hard choice


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/24/06 10:30am

that people make and that *they* are the only ones who have the *right* answer. i don't believe i could have an abortion but i don't think it is right for someone else to tell me what to do with my body also until the day comes when the ones who are making those sort of decisions can be made to take some sort of *test* to prove that they are chaste themselves then i don't think they have a right to judge the management of my life. saying that they are saving the unborn is hogwash, they are just trying to buy a ticket into heaven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: When Is The Un-Born A Human Being?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/24/06 12:31pm

Exactly when is it the unborn becomes a human being?

Assuming that the human "Body Machine' is just that, a vessel for the final part of the package 'The Spirit'; when is it, exactly, the fetus becomes the whole 'Human Being'?

Say that one would terminate the development of that mechanism(The Human Body Machine), would you just not be simply denying 'The Human Spirit' a venue to function?

Would that spirit not find another vessel to exist?

Can you really call this murder?

Does not most institutions of religion exalt 'The Spirit' over the 'Body Machine'?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really now?


Author:
glenn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/26/06 8:23am

Mellisa sez:

"but i don't think it is right for someone else to tell me what to do with my body"

What about the baby's body?

Doesn't anyone care that the baby inside is a person?
Sheesh. What is our world coming to when we carelessly and thoughtlessly terminate a childs life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: what is the world coming to when you get to determine what is careless and thoughtless


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/26/06 12:59pm

glenn sez: Doesn't anyone care that the baby inside is a person?


who "sez" that women don't care? but until beaurocrats/politicans/da's/ceos, etc... "force and enforce" the laws that mandate that women be treated equally, that mothers be given primary, and primo, health care, that absolutely guarantee that each and every child brought into the world will be given the exact same opportunity to a healthy, educated life free of poverty and warfare then you don't really give a(i'll use lee's great word here) rat's ass about that child's life you just want to "sound" as if you do. atleast women are pragmatic enough to understand from the gitgo whether or not they can handle that burden/bounty and maybe that's why god chose them and not men to bear the children, ever thought of that? in no book of god or oral tradition does it say that abortion is prohibited. only men's interpretation of the book has determined that it is god's intention that there be no abortion. guess what: king james didn't write the bible he had it re-written, the bible's original tongue wasn't english, jesus wasn't white and he spoke aramaic and his word for god was alah -so how sure are you that the bible you read (if your encouraged to read one) is correct? in many places, even christianity in the not so distant past, women didn't even have souls or had lesser ones and now suddenly the interpretation has changed.

care about a child's life? stop the wars and then you tell me you care. care about a child's life? pass universal health care and then tell me you care. care about a child's life? stop the poverty and feed the hungry and then tell me you care.

soooooo much easier just to limit my access to taking care of my own body then doing those things, though, isn't it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's the rub


Author:
glenn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 8:22am

"soooooo much easier just to limit my access to taking care of my own body then doing those things, though, isn't it?"

I'm not making excuses. Just wondering.
Poverty, health, etc are all issues that are important as well.

However, in my humble opinion, nothing is more important than someone's life.

There are no guarantees in life as you well know. You are right. A child (unborn or born) has no guarantee it will live the good life, go to college, get married, have kids, etc. But why are we as a nation accepting the fact that we can deny these kids from ever making it out of the womb alive? Because some mother might not be cut out for motherhood? Or gosh, I accidently got pregnant and a baby will only prevent me from pursuing my career.

I dont' subscribe to feminism. It has many fatal flaws and is hypocritical. I don't mean to sound harsh. That's just me. When decisions are made to prevent "The Man" from sticking it to you and "We'll show The Man", I'm sorry but I go back to nothing is more important than a human life - born or unborn. Which is precisely why I can't support the death penalty. Who are we as a nation to decide anyone's death?

I do sympathize with you Melissa. I agree there are many problems in the world that need attention. I don't believe that killing our unborn is a solution though. Infact it only prevents us from finding the solution because it has become the solution.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: you don't legislate morality and as long as it is inside of me


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 12:32pm

it is my body.

selfish? no, i trust in god. he decided to entrust life to me. not to you. he decided that i knew what was best for life inside of me.

now, your job is to make life outside of me so conducive to bearing children that abortion won't be a consideration. not force me to bear children whether or not outside conditions are conducive to the nurturing of the child.

abortion should always be a consideration. it should always be there to remind everyone that if the world is not conducive to sustaining a life then women don't need to bring it forth.

i think if women remember that they have this power, we could do more to bring about peace. i think that this is what is scares men in power. women have the ultimate power. i think god had this in purpose. maybe this is the balance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Then we will agree to disagree


Author:
glenn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 1:52pm

For you it is about power and escaping oppression.
For me it is about protecting life.

You and I cancel each other out.

While you are crusading for the right to kill, I will crusade to protect what you are trying to kill.

You can call it whatever you want (oppression, my body, yada).
In the end, it is what it is - The taking of life.

Since you brought up God, you say he entrusts you to do what is best for the life inside of you. Do you honestly think that what is best for the life inside of you is to stomp it out? Not give it the chance that life gave you because you are worried it might not have a good life?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: sicko


Author:
aliester
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 4:13pm

people like that have had one heckava a childhood to try to put themselves in the position of Savior of the Fetuses. sicko!
some of these psychos come across as niceguys. next sainthood.
CURVES was started by one of these guys. I think it got him access to "the bad girl" with low selfesteem that can be manipulated into feeling guiltier than dirt.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: sound bites - your cute when you stamp your foot and shout


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 9:11pm

meanwhile, i will be working for a better world while you blithely golf, drink martinis and force women to be your incubators.

we can agree to disagree civilly and respectfully or we can twist each other's words into neat little sound bites. i believed that you think you are speaking for an unborn child. i believe that i am speaking for unborn children. i know that they want to live in a world free from the strife of war, poverty and debasement and in health with happy and prospering parents.

yes, i actually believe that god is perfect, that he chose the perfect vessel to carry human beings -knowing they could choose to do so if the conditions were right or choose not to if there was too much danger and instability. i believe that god protects and nurtures the soul of the child who dies, they don't aimlessly wander in purgatory.

i believe that the state shouldn't go against god's choice, it cannot force a woman to keep something inside of her body that she does not feel has the optimum chance of survival outside of it.

you keep throwing your twist on my words and i have let you but now i will challenge you -adding turn about. you act like i am talking about piano lessons and a pony. i am talking about the infant mortality rate and the women forced to attempt to carry a child even though there is little to no chance it will have any life if it makes it past its first year, yet the woman's life is drastically reduced because of the toll that carrying and bearing a child takes on an undernourished woman with no/minimal access to health care. i am talking about the infant going blind because there isn't money for the kind of eye drops to put in its eyes at the moment of birth to prevent defects, thus greatly reducing its chance of surving to adulthood. i am talking about war torn countries where no food means watching your emaciated baby starve to death in front of your eyes. i am talking about the child who will never have the opportunity to go have an education because there is no money for that which means forever living in a state of impoverishment and destitution.

yada, yada, yada you "saving" lives. blah, blah, blah you don't believe in feminism. yak, yak, yak only women saving their careers have abortions. and you getting abortions outlawed will stop your ex-girl-friends and wife's friends from getting abortions? don't think for a minute i think your that naieve. they will still get their abortions because the well-to-do always have access to that. yes, in a world where the GNI is $5488 (that is adding in the $28337 GNI of the industrialized countries as well as the $37610 GNI of the USA) i bet your income is considered very well-to-do and i bet if we loose our right to choose whether to bear a child or not here in oregon within days anyone bringing in over $35,000 will know the name of where to go for the "procedure" if they should so need it and those under $35,000 will have to go back to dosing with pennyroyal, mad dog and the coat hanger.

and again i say, so much easier to legislate forced incubators then ensuring a safe world where a woman doesn't have to make such a sad choice.

i personally know of no woman who has ever had an abortion because a child would harm her career. i know women who have had abortions because they fear the beatings of a father or spouse and the fetus would have aborted as well as no woman for the other children or girl to grow up into a woman. i know women who have had abortions because one more child would have driven them past the breaking point, no birth control didn't work and the man didn't like the rubber "cause it didn't feel natural" (said w/a voice dripping with sarcasm). i know women who had an abortion because they were raped and carrying that man's child for nine months was more than they could bear. i have read books and seen movies about career women's abortions. wonder who authored those?

i don't have a right to judge them. god gave them the right to choose when he gave them the option to bear a child. men force them to bear the child. god gives them a choice. yes, i believe it is god's way of making things even. men may have physical power but if you want women to stop having abortions then make this world a place where its safe to bring children into it ... or sit on them and force them to have children.

hey, whichever is easiest i am sure it will be chosen. i already told you i don't plan on choosing abortion for myself but i guarantee you not even your wife can honestly promise you that she won't ever have an abortion and your daughters will never tell you if they do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said, Melissa


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 5:28am

Very well said, there are alot of different reasons for choosing abortion that Glenn's "high and mighty" life can not comprehend.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: High and mighty?


Author:
glenn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 8:26am

Jim, funny that coming from you.
You, a person I think I have met once.

You can assume I am high and mighty but you definately don't know me enough to qualify that statement.

Back to abortion and Melissa:
Melissa, I don't golf, drink, or oppress women.
I go to church as often as possible. Catholic I might add.
Usually with my family. I have two daugters age 10 months and the other 7 years. My wife and I have been married for 12 years. When I'm not working, I'm working. When I'm not doing that, I'm working. I don't get out much. When I do, it is with my family or public service.

Now you know a bit about me and where I'm coming from.

What this issue comes down to for me is whether or not abortion is murder. I believe it is.
Regardless of ALL of the reasons a person can bring to the table for abortion to be acceptable, none take precedence over a human life.

Nothing high and mighty about it.
I'm simply opposed to the taking of a human life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: one catholic man's experiences


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 1:36pm

Glenn says "I'm simply opposed to the taking of a human life"

I always wonder why you aren't anti-war! Not as simple as bringing a life into the world?
---
anyway-

I have a male friend who, in his youth, during the fifties, managed to get three young women pregnant out of wedlock. His well-off catholic family always came to the rescue to coerce/counsel/help the women into putting the children up for adoption. They also paid the lawyer to make the arrangements.

How does it work these days? Not many families can afford to make these arrangements?

My friend has struggled with depression during his life.(often for years at a time) He didn't stay in touch with the women. But he did complain about how controlling his father was.(?) He says he feels guilty about not fulfiling his parental duties. Lucky for everyone "the pill" came along. Many catholics use birth control I'm told. I wonder if Glenn is against birth control.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Preventing vs taking, is there a difference?


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 7:01am

Sorry Glenn, High and mighty might not have been the proper term. Telling a woman what to do with her body certainly comes close to that though. Prevention vs "taking the life" that was not prevented, hmmmm, it certainly would be good to hear Glenns side of this. I believe that the Catholic church had been against this (til recently?).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Two different issues


Author:
glenn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 9:27am

Jim, I don't mind arguing the issue but when you start the name calling, I'm gone. I'm just not interested in that.

I'm not sure what you mean by prevention vs taking. But I'll give it a shot:
As far as birth control goes, I am not opposed to it because it prevents conception from occuring. I'm not sure how the church feels about this right now. I know that the church would be against birth control AFTER conception has occured.
Catholic teaching is that life begins at conception.

The point I raised is I believe that abortion is killing. It has nothing to do with what a woman does with her body. I'm focused on the child, not the body. As Melissa stated, the body is "the vessel". The issue at hand is whether or not the child inside is a child. If it's a child, it should have the right to live as the rest of us do.

I'm not about oppression of women. People that do know me, know me to be an extremely sensative person - especially toward women. I would never in my life condemn or treat indifferently a woman who has had an abortion. If anything (and I have) I would help council if necessary.

The problem I see with abortion is it is NOT on peoples radar screen. Most people get bullet points about it but don't really think about it in depth. Take religion out of it. What we should be thinking about is whether or not the child inside is the same child outside. I believe it is and that it should have the right to live.

A woman should NOT have the right to terminate a life. Be it an unborn child, a born child, or a grown person. No woman should have the exclusive right to kill anyone. I don't know of any man that has the exclusive right to kill.

Did you know that there are more people wanting to adopt in our nation than there are children to adopt?

If a mother doesn't want her child, there is someone that does.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: but are they people worthy of adopting?


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 2:13pm

then let them make this country a place where its safe for women to want to bring children into the world.

and this is where i think you are wrong and god is right. i truly believe that god gave women the right to choose. i believe that god gave men the right to make this world a place where women will want to make the choice to bring children into it. i don't believe, until women have complete and total control over their lives and their bodies, that women have choices as to whether or not to get pregnant in the first place in many (often most) instances. i think you are a very naieve person to not understand that two out of three women are forced to have sex, against their wishes, atleast once in their life time which could result in an unwanted pregnancy that could threaten their lives either physically or mentally.

reading northcoast.com and seeing how little respect people give to women who have too many children or children against their better judgement (they know thier mental capacity and breaking point) and then are pushed beyond it and commit the unspeakable act -how much more wiser would it have been for such a woman to quietly, with the knowledge between only her doctor and herself, have an abortion? how much saner would she be today and how many lives would that act have saved? so often the emphasis is wrongly on the one act.

over and over again we hear bush touted as saving lives in the war against evil. how honorable it is that some lives are lost for the greater good, even in times of the draft, when a president or general sacrifices lives of some to save the lives of many. yet, the god-given right of women to make that choice is vilified as evil, women are touted as selfish and ego centered and then when they go ahead and have the child and crack they are monsters deserving of severe punishment to stand as an example so no one else will attempt such a heinous act. as if the knowledge of what she committed by her own hands will not be punishment enough for as long as she takes a breath.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: according to Catholic law


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 4:33pm

If during childbirth, a choice has to be made to avoid loosing both lives, the unborn child has priority over the life of the mother. The mother's life is sacrificed to save the baby. Patriarchal Catholic Guidlines outrage many female members.
It seems woman's worth is as breeder in the Conservative Christian Realm.
It explains Glenn's version of "love of life".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Is Taggart Of The Same Ilk As Richard Lee? Russ Earl?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 7:08pm

Which implies that women are simply the 'Chattel' of their husbands and should basically always know their place because the all-powerful master knows best.

So Taggart goes to church, so what?

John Gotti went to church.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: okaaay? So!


Author:
sherlock
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 8:04pm

"So Taggart goes to church, so what?

John Gotti went to church."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You See?.. My Point Exactly!


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/31/06 10:02pm

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "it's hard work"


Author:
sasha
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 5:04pm

Glen is probably keeping in mind his BASE, as does all prudent politicians. He probably sees his republican base first and foremost as anti-choice then pro-environment, pro-war, pro-bush, anti-feminist,pro nice guy.

Once elected he becomes pro-big energy and lng, anti-environment, pro-war, pro-bush, anti-choice, and pro-Glen.
And probably once Roe wade is overturned by the catholic supreme court he will quit consoling those preggers girls. That's a good thing. Does he find them on the internet or does his church throw them his way? hmm.






[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Posted: 07/28/06 8:26am
In reply to: Jim 's message, "Well said, Melissa" on 07/28/06 5:28am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, funny that coming from you.
You, a person I think I have met once.

You can assume I am high and mighty but you definately don't know me enough to qualify that statement.

Back to abortion and Melissa:
Melissa, I don't golf, drink, or oppress women.
I go to church as often as possible. Catholic I might add.
Usually with my family. I have two daugters age 10 months and the other 7 years. My wife and I have been married for 12 years. When I'm not working, I'm working. When I'm not doing that, I'm working. I don't get out much. When I do, it is with my family or public service.

Now you know a bit about me and where I'm coming from.

What this issue comes down to for me is whether or not abortion is murder. I believe it is.
Regardless of ALL of the reasons a person can bring to the table for abortion to be acceptable, none take precedence over a human life.

Nothing high and mighty about it.
I'm simply opposed to the taking of a human life
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I Ask Again.........


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 9:06am

When is that fetus technically a human?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: technically?


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 1:10pm

what's technically?

what else is *it*? a piece of meat? a piece of my womb? is that what you mean?

sort of funny in that someone who kills a child, born alive, in like a drunk driving accident, can get off with two years probation but a woman who decides that one more child will send her over the brink and cause her to do serious damage to her entire family cannot, in *good conscious* make the decision to abort the life because someone has interpreted the bible for her to say she will be condemned if she does so.

i think i see your point, however, i think the bible says not to take a life. no life, not a dogs nor an ants and so forth. so is stopping the development of a fetus stopping the potential of life any more then a male masturbating is?

somewhere else in the bible doesn't it say it is better to empty one's seed in a whore rather than empty it into the dust? myself, i think its a metaphor. however, i think many churches use it to shame masturbation and even encouraged armies to have entourages of whores accompany them when touring battles. Also, encouraged rape when pillaging villages. not meaning to bash churches, however, anthropolically speaking it is a fact.

so, when is a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a human being? now i'm gonna cut and paste cause its sunday and the lord said i shouldn't use too much of my brain on this day cause i'm a woman and i might scare men. haha! besides, this website does a reasonably good job explaining some concepts that i, to a certain extent, agree with.

"Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy8. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy—people have a right to non-procreative sex9. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)

Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term."

sorry, patrick, still didn't technically answer your question!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Don't Apologize, You Made Many Valid Points To Support Abortion....


Author:
Patrick McGee (Taggart Can't Get Out Of It!!)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 8:20pm

Taggart's philosophies and it's quite clear he's striving to be another of the 'Local Status Quo Leadership', won't let him out of his stance on abortion.

I just refuse to allow 'Religious Institutions' And 'Political Philosophy/Peer Fear' to overide common sense on the issue of abortion.

Don't you find it curious that abortion has been legal for what, 30 years or more and its still in effect regardless of all the elections and debates by all socalled opponents, and their use of all the catch words(Child, murder, death of the unborn) and rhetoric?

Republicans or no, when they are in office, the abortion issue seems to be set over to the side till next election then, it all starts again.
[> Subject: how did we get from here to abortion? and what's fwiw?


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/30/06 5:50pm

glenn enjoys debating. i don't like his name calling, i guess he would call it labeling, others would call it tagging or profiling. your a liberal, your a feminist, blah, blah, blah. whatever. it is a way of you becoming "the other" a tactic learned by boys in games but always in preperation for war. sociology 210.
Subject: No Bush Bashing cause we're in good hands


Author:
dumbfounded(i love my prez, honest)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/31/06 4:36pm

when asked whether Iraq was getting “closer to a civil war“:

SEC. RUMSFELD:

Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is - there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it’s a - it’s a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I’m not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
Subject: warming naysayers misuse research results


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 7:18pm

Cold, Hard Facts (nytimes opED)

By PETER DORAN
Published: July 27, 2006
Chicago

IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

Newspaper and television reports focused on this part of the paper. And many news and opinion writers linked our study with another bit of polar research published that month, in Science, showing that part of Antarctica’s ice sheet had been thickening — and erroneously concluded that the earth was not warming at all. “Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming,” said a headline on an editorial in The San Diego Union-Tribune. One conservative commentator wrote, “It’s ironic that two studies suggesting that a new Ice Age may be under way may end the global warming debate.”

In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown.

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.

The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Peter Doran is an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
[> Subject: macgee in bed with rev. moon and lindzen on bad advice


Author:
non-smoking planet lover
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 5:39pm



The CORRUPT RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
DESPICABLE OUTCAST OF SCIENCE



Lindzen CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to DEFRAUD. Three front organs used, and a few key people aiding and abetting FELONY.
Interactive Version Online.


Additional FELONY CONSPIRATORS at TechCentralStation
Interactive Version Online.


Additional FELONY CONSPIRATORS at Cato Institute Interactive Version Online.


Some linkages between FELON S. Fred Singer and FELON Sallie Baliunas collections of whorehouses.
Interactive Version Online.




In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S. Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled "Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER CORPORATIONS.

Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will be adduced at trial.


Google search engine reports 164 results looking for Richard S. Lindzen AND "Washington Times" owned by the convicted felon Sun Myung Moon. Moon has hosted many fake science conferences to exploit for propaganda purposes. Singer apprenteced the fake science conference back when Singer was President of the moonie "Washingon Institute for Values in Public Policy". No records exist in public archives on what Moon paid Singer as president of the Wash Inst, but here is a link showing how generous Moon is to one successor president after Singer's term -- $142,708/yr salary.


Moon is master of money laundering and subversive payoffs -- we will never know who all he paid and how much they pocketed. We do know that Google search engine finds 152 webpages linking Moon AND Lindzen. There is an unseemly association between a science corruptor and a known identified corrupt Lindzen: 314 webpage results for Lindzen AND "Sun Myung Moon" OR "Washington Times".


http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html SUBJECT: The Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993

BACKGROUND

This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become a broad and independent movement in a littlc bit less than a year. We are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are being discreet because some of the coalition members are concerned about a "tobacco connection".

Our strategy is to continue discreetly supporting the coalition and help it grow in size and credibility. The timing is particularly opportune because of Bill Clinton's sympathy to the messages of the coalition (see attached IHT article).




(Philip Morris Documents)
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program






Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to address the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]



... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year. Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Fund.

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics -- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. [#1] ...

[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels' video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be trying to tell them now.]


SOME SCIENTISTS ARE PAID TO LIE BY BIG OIL AND COAL COMPANIES.

We no longer need scientists to tell us the truth when it gets big enough: we have a BIG CONSPIRACY with FELONY INTENT TO DEFRAUD operated by people who match the medical definition of insane (Sociopath, antisocial personality disorder).

It really is that simple: FIRST you check the scientists credentials against the investigative teams hunting out the sicko psycho mad scientists -- if they work for poison & pollution industy, you skip reading anything they have to say.

Famous psychopaths once worked for the Tobacco Conspiracy, now work for ExxonMobil on the anti-science frauds and hoaxes.
[> Subject: damn reporters


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 7:18pm

why do they do that? skew the reporting? i can't stand reading papers anymore unless i can afford a point and counterpoint. give me internet and the daily show for my news atleast with one i have control over getting my own counterpoints and with the other you know its all tongue in cheek right up front (but for the most part, its alot more truth then whats on any other "news" channel).
Subject: What's the matter with you people? LNG IS FOR YOU?


Author:
LNG supporters must explain this to the intelligent
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 12:52pm

LNG holding tanks on the lower columbia meant for Californians, and not Oregonians? Worse yet, not meant for anyone in Clatsop County or the Northwest?

Tying up river traffic and bridge traffic in and around the lower columbia, and risking the lives of thousands because of dangerous Columbia bar crossings and explosions from accidents or terrorism is to benefit the energy needs of people in California, who will not have these ships off load on their coast? Yet the people in Warrenton, Seaside and Astoria buy the propaganda of LNG IS FOR ME!!! What's the matter with you people?
[> Subject: The "cute people" and radio personalities told us it would be a good idea


Author:
the suckers
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 8/06 12:49pm

You know who they are!! They're cute and affluent so they must be right. Right?
[> [> Subject: that's the way to win me over call me a sucker imply


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 8/06 3:31pm

i'm an idiot and that the choice i've made in voting was completely stupid. way to drive me into total apathy. or did you notice that at the polls? hysteria doesn't win the day it freezes peoples minds and makes them think "will, i'll just ahve to trust the guy i elected to do his job, after all, haha, that's what he gets paid the big bucks for. he's my friend and neighbor, he isn't going to screw me."

if you want to impact people it can't be with hysteria. its got to be with the tried and true that it has already been proven that they have been listening to for 50 years. or you have to talk to a whole different crowd that has never been talked to before and never voted before. either way the sneering shit just doesn't work. no one wants to be talked down to. no one wants to feel like they are being rescued by "people who know what is best for everyone outsiders". its almost as if the lng-ers studied this area and hired "polarizing entrepreneurs". sent in a "hit squad" to sneer at the "opposition" (the politicians actually for lng) and another rally squad that put the teeth whiteners/caps on the politicians/advertisements to lull those halfway listening into a sense of false security.

saying river vision served its purpose is amazing. what was its purpose? if someone like me doesn't know, then it did not serve its purpose. reach the "common" person. the one who doesn't have access to the internet but who actually labors to make this community function. the one who trully resents being called an idiot or being told that the person he has voted for five times is a villian. whats that say bout the voter? if you want to insult him and loose his vote, good job, ya done it. i think this is known and this is used as a "polarization" technique to drive people away from the meetings from voicing opinions and from voting on issues. then those in power stay in power and nothing around here changes. people around here are very well versed in silencing each other, aren't they?
[> [> [> Subject: "The ball is in your court"


Author:
the sucker's message
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 9/06 11:39am

take over citizen. win the game.
[> [> [> Subject: RiverVision: Somewhere Along The Way........


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 7:52am

.....somebody served this group a big dose of 'Salt Peter'.

Seems now they are mere 'Concubines of Neutrality' for all issues impacting our environment and life quality on the Lower Columbia moreso than advocates for its preservation.

Wait, wait, wait and wait some more for decisions by careless leadership to be made in our behalf.

Bad move!
[> [> [> [> Subject: Saltpeter


Author:
Tom
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/25/06 2:33pm

Come to the public meeting in Cathlamet tonight. Saltpeter is not on the menu. 7:00 pm at the school
[> [> [> [> Subject: you're talking out your a##


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/26/06 5:31am

I don't think that you have a clue what Rivervision is doing if that is your true thought. Rivervision is doing a lot behind the scenes along with doing alot out in the open. They, PFRP, and many others are doing alot that you don't see. They have done a lot to get everyone along this river together.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Cite Those Accomplishments Jim...Would You?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/26/06 5:23pm

So, update us on all those accomplishments Jim.

I would really like to apologize for being so wrong in my observations.

Thank you in advance for the list of those accomplishments.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I can only name but a few...


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/27/06 5:49am

...but they are a very important few, and I'm sure that I don't know all of it. They are very important on the LNG front, they were the first, actually. If it weren't for them coming to the various meetings here in Warrenton, it wouldn't have taken anyones attention. They are VERY important for fund raising for not only their ventures, but for PFRP's as well. They are working up the river for the opposition to Bradwood and the pipeline. Tom and Sue especially. They have been instrumental in informing the public about LNG, if the public doesn't know, it's because they don't read the paper or listen to the radio.

That's only on the LNG front. They have also had various meetings about other issues. Global warming, I believe, Bio-diesel, etc.

Like I said, I only know a part of what they do, but it is a very important part. They are the reason I first got into the LNG movement and learned all about LNG and PFRP.
Jim
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: So You Really Haven't Named One Specific Accomplishment....


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 10:09am

....and yet you say I'm talking through my ass?

I sure as hell didn't need any group to make me aware of the dangers of LNG and that it was not good for this community.

It was pretty much a blatant and common sense deduction.

I pretty much assumed that you were intelligent enough to deduce that on your own and I think that is really the case with you still.

I think you actually know more than you are willing to admit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: nothing from a NOTHING


Author:
sunny jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 3:04pm

what has patrick mcgee ever accomplished? what will he ever accomplish?
NOTHING.
he's a NOTHING.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Is there something about respectful dialoging that you don't get?


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/28/06 9:58pm

So what if that's your opinion about someone? How does name calling make our community a better place to live in? Cripes, such adult behavior!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: How well do you know patrick mcgee?


Author:
Just Curious
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 11:03am

kinda curious as to how well you know mcgee's lack of accomplishment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hadn't heard God died and left you to judge


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 12:52pm

a man's life and accomplishments.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: YOU may not have needed the education...


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 7:15am

...about LNG, but many others out there needed to be awoken to what our "illustrious" Port commissioners were subjecting us to. I had missed the leading up to of the Port Commissioners decision, and I didn't know about LNG until my first Rivervision meeting shortly thereafter. Until it was decided against the will of the people of this community, I didn't know what it was. Sadly, I knew that I and others were fighting an uphill battle against Calpine and their ilk, and against my own "illustrious" city commissioners and their ilk. Having been in front of them before (Warrenton city commissioners), I knew not to expect attentiveness to any citizens complaints. If it's not what they want to hear, you can practically see them "tune" you out.

What I will admit too or not as far as knowledge goes, I know that Rivervision, and more recently, other groups, are doing quite a bit to still fight this LNG menace, that still is raising it's ugly head, up the river and down.

Had you heard that Northern Star might want to "buy out" the lease that Calpine started here on the Skipanon? Might just be a rumor, might not...interesting. Although, from what I understand, they are not on the best of money terms either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, I Heard That.......


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/29/06 10:55am

I also heard a project they, NSNG, were trying to put together in SoCal, without success with potential new investors, has come back alive and is regarded by them as more important than any of the other projects they are eyeing.
Subject: Expert calls LNG terminal applications 'deficient'


Author:
Patrick McGee (From an article by Tony Lystra)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/26/06 9:55pm

Expert calls LNG terminal applications 'deficient'
By Tony Lystra
Jul 25, 2006 - 11:23:52 pm PDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former petroleum industry executive said Tuesday that documents submitted by a Houston company hoping to build a liquified natural gas terminal on the Columbia River are "deficient in technical information" and do not adequately address questions about safety, river traffic or even the company's business plan.

"Frankly, if I could get away with it in foreign countries, I'd do exactly what they've done," said James Reed, who has worked for Marathon Oil Co. and Texaco and inspected natural gas facilities across Asia. "This proposal would not pass muster within a major oil company."

Northern Star Natural Gas wants to put an LNG terminal in Bradwood, Ore., where it would unload liquified natural gas from tankers on the Columbia, then pump it through a pipeline that would cross the Mill Creek area of Cowlitz County and connect with an existing line near Ostrander.

Reed spoke Tuesday night at a Cathlamet meeting sponsored by Wahkiakum Friends of the River, which opposes the project. Roughly 60 attended the meeting, including Cowlitz County Commissioner Jeff Rasmussen, state legislators Brian Blake and Dean Takko and a representative from U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's office.

Reed, who has negotiated petroleum deals with foreign governments and overseen natural gas operations in Tunisia, also said Northern Star's applications do not describe how the company will keep the terminal from corroding or how its computer-controlled safety system would shut the plant down in case of an emergency.

"The studies you do that determine what's going to go wrong and what you're going to do about it --- you need to have that," he told the crowd. "There's nothing in the submissions that suggest how they're going to go about it."

Based on documents filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will consider the project, "this proposal looks to me something like what we might have done in-house to determine whether we wanted to go forward on a project."

Reed acknowledged that he has not read all of the documents and said he was more familiar with foreign regulations than domestic energy policies.

Still, he said of the documents, "It's so vague. Things that I would have expected to be tied down don't seem to be tied down in the submissions I've read."

Asked how many of the documents he's pored through, Reed held his hands about 3 inches apart.

"I've read a lot," he said.

Reed said that he has not "seen the silver bullet that kills the project." But he speculated that if Northern Star continues to submit what he considers substandard technical documents, federal regulators might become "fed up" and declare the project "a waste of FERC's time."

Reed, now retired, moved to Cathlamet in January. He said he would prefer the company didn't build the plant. But, with a shrug, he added, "I can live with it."
Subject: Speaking of Michael Chertoff-ferries and private boats exempt


Author:
bouphonia
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/20/06 12:49am

Those Who Hate Us Can Take the Ferry


Bruce Schneier detects a minor flaw in BushCo's plan to keep America safe from border-crossing evildoers:

By January 1st, 2007, everyone crossing the border between the U.S. and Canada is supposed to have a passport. This is because of terrorism, of course. But now we learn that ferries and private watercraft will be exempt.
If that sounds odd, it's only because you haven't yet been soothed by the avuncular bedside manner of Michael Chertoff (who wouldn't dream of lying to you unless it were absolutely necessary):
[W]e will not be, for example, including in this set of regulations a requirement for passports for ferries or private watercraft, recognizing that this is a particular form of transportation that we don't want to interfere with," said Chertoff.
One of Schneier's commenters suggests that BushCo is simply acknowledging the well-known scientific fact that evil spirits can't cross water, which I think is as good an explanation as any.

In other HS news, Strategic Security Blog describes some problems with the revamped version of Ready.gov, a site which is supposed to provide guidance to citizens in the event of a disaster:
Even though DHS claims that its disabilities information is revised, a simple comparison to a 2003 version of Ready.gov demonstrates that not a single word has changed in the past three years....

DHS has also failed to rectify inaccurate information on other pages of its site, such as a recommendation to get out of the area if possible during an outdoor chemical attack. Experts at RAND have declared that evacuation should never be considered as a response to this kind of attack.
The advice for those who find themselves inconvenienced by an unexpected thermonuclear attack is somewhat more practical. The first step? "Quickly assess the situation."
Subject: Do we under an Authoritarian Regime controlled by fear?


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/19/06 4:33pm

[> Subject: Do we LIVE under an authoritarian regime?


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/11/06 6:42pm

A personality pattern reflecting a desire for security, order, power, and status, with a desire for structured lines of authority, a conventional set of values or outlook, a demand for unquestioning obedience, and a tendency to be hostile toward or use as scapegoats individuals of minority or nontraditional groups.



The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[> [> Subject: testing testing-text doesn't post


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/11/06 6:44pm

A personality pattern reflecting a desire for security, order, power, and status, with a desire for structured lines of authority, a conventional set of values or outlook, a demand for unquestioning obedience, and a tendency to be hostile toward or use as scapegoats individuals of minority or nontraditional groups.



The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[> [> Subject: setting a president


Author:
Nixon
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/12/06 10:57pm

"If the president does it, it isn't illegal"
[> [> [> Subject: "the president is always right, senator"


Author:
Department of Justice chief "legal" lapbeagle bradbury
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/12/06 11:04pm

Justice Department lawyer tells Congress: Bush 'always right'

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday July 12, 2006


An exchange between Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Justice Department legal council chief Steven Bradbury regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay ended with Bradbury announcing "the President is always right," RAW STORY has learned.

Leahy had asked Bradbury about what the Department of Justice had advised the President, and how certain decisions regarding Guantanamo Bay had been made. A transcript of the rest of the exchange follows:

#
MR. BRADBURY: Well, Senator, I think -- as I said in my testimony, obviously the court's decision does not call into question our ability to hold detainees --

LEAHY: Not my question. The president said very specifically -- and he said it to our European allies -- he was waiting for the Supreme Court decision and that would tell him whether he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo. In effect, it actually said neither. Where did he get that impression?

BRADBURY: Well --

LEAHY: The president's not a lawyer. You are. The Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?

BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas, and I --

LEAHY: Well, where'd he get the idea?

BRADBURY: Obviously -- the Hamdan decision, Senator, does implicitly recognize that we're in a war, that the president's war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That's what the whole -- the whole case was about --

LEAHY: I don't think the president was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm. He was saying that this was going to tell him whether he could keep Guantanamo open or not. Afterward, he said it said he could.

BRADBURY: Well, it's --

LEAHY: Was the president right or was he wrong?

BRADBURY: It's under the Law of War that we --

LEAHY: Was the president right or wrong?

BRADBURY: -- the president is always right, Senator.
[> Subject: Well, let's see...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/12/06 7:32am

This is basically what I've heard from the 2 parties:

Side 1 = Vote for us, or the terrorists will get you.

Side 2 = Vote for us, or the other guys will toss you out on the streets.

Both parties use gov't agencies and the courts to intimidate average citizens, and try to micromanage our lives.
[> [> Subject: Chilla da finch wanted to know what an authoritarian is, so..


Author:
Not a "pure right-wing authoritarian follower"
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 9:33am

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

John Dean: Study Says Authoritarians “Overwhelmingly” Conservative

In last night’s appearance on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, former White House counsel to President Nixon, John Dean, discussed his recently released book, Conservatives Without Conscience, where he says he came across a little known fifty-year academic study that chronicled the characteristics of the authoritarian personality.







KEITH OLBERMANN: What did you find? — In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

JOHN DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They’ve never really shared this with the general public. It’s a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people — hundreds of thousands of people — in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it’s just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it’s just overwhelmingly conservative orientation. (emphasis mine)

Eventually, Olbermann and Dean got into a discussion about the Right’s obsession with determining an enemy and waging an all out war on it.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires — this whole edifice requires an enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me… whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that’s certainly one of the basics. There’s no question that, particularly the followers, they’re very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it. (emphasis mine)

Olbermann and Dean discussed how in order to “do what ever needs to be done,” the Right engages in a “ends justify the means” methodology to achieve their aimed goals.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don’t enter into it at all. “We’re right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power — even if it by itself is wrong — it’s right in the greater sense.” It’s that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these authoritarian figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have authoritarianism. It was already operating on Capitol Hill after the ‘94 control by the Republicans in Congress. It recreated the mood. It restructured Congress itself in a very authoritarian style, in the House in particular. The Senate hasn’t gone there yet but it’s going there because more House members are moving over. This atmosphere is what Bush and Cheney walked into. They are authoritarian personalities. Cheney much more so than Bush. They have made it legitimate and they have taken way past where anybody’s ever taken it in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Our society’s best defense against that is what? Do we have to hope, as you suggested, the people that follow, wise up and break away from this sort of lockstep salute to, “of course, they’re right, of course there are WMDs, of course there are terrorists, of course there is al Qaeda, of course everything is the way the president says it.” Or do we rely on the hope that these are fanatics and fanatics always screw up because they would rather believe in their own cause than double-check their own math.

DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, “I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers.” They’re not going to change. They’re going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them — and they’re growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics — The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they’re doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are. (emphasis)

According to this study cited by Dean, the Right flocks to authoritarianism at an astronomically higher rate than the Left does, but the Right would have you believe it is we, those damn liberals, who are the blogofascists at the blogitburo with a single “Keyboard Kingpin.” It is more of the right-wing’s “accuse the Left of what the Right actually does” that is the modus operandi of the modern conservative movement.
[> [> [> Subject: Authoritarian vs Dictatorship


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 3:19pm

The problem with the study, from what I read, is it appears they used a form of dictatorship to define authoritarian. In that instance, yes - conservatives would be more likely to be authoritarian than liberals.

But if you used other forms of authoritarian gov't, such as communism and socialism ... liberals would be more likely to be authoritarian than conservatives.
[> [> [> [> Subject: geez


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 12:19am

Walter, you always do that. A 50 year study and you just blow it away? Are you kindda like a buddhist?
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Don't you think ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 3:01pm

... Communist/Socialist gov'ts are authoritarian?

Or do you not think liberals want a Communist/Socialist gov't? And it's all just a funny coincidence that what they espouse tends towards communism/socialism?

A flawed 50-year study, is still flawed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: wiki the united fruit company, which became chiquitta banana


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 11:49pm

And keep in mind that the Dulles Brothers were old Bush Family cohorts.


No!!!!!!-socialist governments are not always authoritarian. Sometimes, usually, Corporate interests get the power of the Cia or the dod behind them and the government, like Russia or Cuba have to curtail infiltration. Castro and Chavez have survived assassination attempts.

Would you say Sweden is Authoritarian?

I consider an Oligarchy authoritarian. When the money and power is concentrated in secret accounts of the few, that is not a free market.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Would you say Sweden is Authoritarian?


Author:
Walter
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 7:29am

I would say almost every country has an authoritarian gov't. The only exception may be the Swiss and Israelies - because their citizens are so heavily armed, they could easily overthrow their own gov't if they wanted. And their central gov't is inherently "weak", due to so many political factions.

It is the very nature of gov't, no matter what kind, to seek to gain more power. And gov'ts gain power by only 2 means:

1 - Expanding the area of their control, or
2 - Expanding their control over the citizenry.

The Founders wanted us to avoid the 1st, by telling us to avoid foreign entanglements and giving us a (Constitutionally) weak standing army.

They wanted to help us avoid the 2nd, by stating that power came from the People ... to the states ... THEN to the federal. (See 10th Amendment)

Unfortunately, administrations were able to get around the 1st restriction (prior to WWII) by using our standing Navy/Marines to "project power". They've gotten around the 2nd restriction, just by increasingly ignoring the Constitution.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 'Socialism' The Last Resort Of The Philosophically Destitute!!!


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 11:31am

Just give up the chase for "The American Dream" and put your hand in the hand of "The Man".

Better yet, put your life in the hands of the Good Lord or Satan, whichever philosopy suits you then piss and moan about it incessantly as if it's a conspiracy against you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the whiner nimby says not to piss and moan


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 1:42am

fyi

Evolutionary socialism is a form of socialist theory which was originally developed by Eduard Bernstein. Evolutionary socialism argues that socialist goals can be gradually completed via democracy, trade unions and reform, rather than by violent revolution.

So what kind of "capitalism" do you find workable?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Like I Said, 'Philosophically Destitute'


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 7:35am

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah..........waiting for the usual....."I hate George Bush; did you know that?"

Couple more paragraphs and it would have surely popped up but, I guess in 'Socialism's' evolution George Bush hasn't really had a major role.

You dis-respect and dilute 'The Movement' by trying to parade your little 'One Trick Pony' in every post.

This, in this post, is progress for you 'Pinky'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What Movement? There's a movement? George and Condi ain't moving..


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 12:33pm

..from the safety of St Petersburg and their Daddy Putin.


What glorious movement? I haven't been watching Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Could "the movement" be the enabling of the demolition of the American Government by father-hungry followers of no-nothings. William Crystal advised that the "secular" government of Iraq would just all get along after we took over in Iraq. What Shia? What suni? No problem.

The take over of the world by "on the move" middle-aged harmonica-playing neo-gypsies in Tee captions of "we were right,huh daddy?!??? where's our daddy?"

Just for fun I will try again to test your metal. What theory of capitalism do you think works best?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Israel?


Author:
ben there
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/19/06 3:50pm

Israel has an authoritarian gov't. Armed citizens or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: reports from Lebanon


Author:
juan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/19/06 4:33pm

By Juan Cole

If the reports coming out of Lebanon can be believed, the Israelis are only sometimes striking known Hizbullah safe houses or facilities or missile emplacements. A lot of their bombardment appears aimed at punishing civilian populations and forcing them north to Beirut. Such an approach would help explain the high number of civilian casualties. That is, there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics.
Subject: Energy Task Force Meeting should be Public


Author:
from wgg
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/19/06 12:05am

Saturday, July 15, 2006
Operation Iraqi Liberation


Craig Barnes, noted essayist and international crisis negotiator, read an essay last week on the local NPR outlet here (kunm.org, though it is not yet in their archives), in which he described, finally, and flatly, the direct connection between the ICORP* of Iraq and OIL as well as petroleum.

It started with Cheney's Energy 'Task Force' meeting in Feb, 2001, at which the hungry wolves of the USer energy establishment were forced to gnash and snarl over the fact that all of Iraq's oil concessions were already held by folks who were NOT IN THE ROOM.

Everybody present knew that the only way these concessions could be overturned, and that enormous wealth could be re-appropriated, was if Saddam, who was signatory to 'em all, was ousted.

So, in the fullnes of time, Saddam was ousted. And all the pre-existing concessions were voided. And Ahmed Chalabi--who, in March, 2003, marched into Bagdhad at the head of his own private army of 700 well-armed loyalists AHEAD of the invading, victorious USer 'Liberators'-- was installed as interim Oil Minister for just long enough for viceroy Paul Bremer to affix his signature to new concessions, which were awarded to (guess who)...yeah, the very same guys who were in the room sith Darth Cheney, back in Feb 2001.

Everything that has happened in Iraq--and, arguendo, to the USofA and the world--since that day in 2001, when the USer oil cabal decided they wanted--indeed, were entitled to--the oil in Iraq, is the result of decisions reached that day. From which you can ascertain why it was so important that the words exchanged that day remain secret--a judgment in which the SCROTUS was agreement, even before the Busheviks installed their own Chief and another lickspittle factotum.

Barnes, a very thoughtful and perspicuous individual (whom I have had the opportunity to meet on several occasions) also noted that, if you took a map and marked out upon it the locations of all the (allegedly 14) 'permanent' US bases in Iraq, and laid that map over one which showed the richest oil fields in Iraq (see above), there you would find an almost exact homology (except for the base in Basra, which is Iraq's only port, by the way).

From that map, it also possible to understand why it has become so important to bring Syria into the sphere of war, too: pipelines.

BTW: I still think it a very good possibility that, if he lives, Chalabi will eventually become the next Iraqi strongman.




*ICORP: Invasion, Conquest, Occupation, Rape, Pillage
Subject: We're in a lot of trouble


Author:
kita
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/18/06 11:27pm

Voting rights under attack across US

author: Eula Holmes


A determined effort is under way in numerous states across the US to further restrict ballot access and voting rights. Despite the theft of the 2000 presidential election by George W. Bush and his installation in the White House by the US Supreme Court, and allegations of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio and other states during the 2004 election, there has been no effort made to defend voters' rights.
On the contrary, moves are afoot in a number of states to further restrict the constitutionally protected right to vote. This assault has taken two major forms. First, state governments are passing laws requiring individuals to present additional identification when they vote. Second, a number of state governments are enacting legislation placing strict limits on voter registration drives.
In the vast majority of cases, the new regulations are being pushed by state legislators who claim they want to curb voter fraud. In reality, the restrictions are aimed at denying the right to vote—and are disproportionately targeted at the poor, minorities and the elderly.
The push for voter identification
In Missouri, a bill signed into law June 14 by Governor Matt Blunt, a Republican, requires voters there to show a government-issued photo ID as soon as the November elections. Nearly 200,000 Missourians registered to vote do not have state-issued photo IDs and may be denied the right to vote if they do not obtain such identification in time.
Most of those without a government-issued photo ID are senior citizens, the disabled or the urban and rural poor. Legislators offered to provide free photo IDs to all these citizens in time for the election, or to offer them a provisional ballot. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who opposes the new law, pointed out that of the approximately 8,000 provisional ballots cast in Missouri in 2004, only about 3,000 were ever counted.
The Missouri law does allow voters to use forms of ID other than the state-issued ID. However, it also states: "local election officials will determine whether your identification meets the requirements listed below. The Department of Revenue and its contract offices will NOT be the arbiter of such questions." The "list below" referred to by the state web site contains no less than eight pages of instructions and caveats that accompany the new law. One reads: "NOTE: Provisional ballots may not be available in all elections" (emphasis in the original).
Thus, in addition to new ID requirements, the law allows local officials to monitor polls at specific locations and block as many as 200,000 voters who don't have approved identification. A legal challenge is expected.
In March 2005, the Georgia legislature passed a series of reforms to the state's election statutes, signed into law by Republican Governor Sonny Perdue. The package included a new provision reducing the number of acceptable forms of photo voter identification from 17 to 6. Only last week, two court rulings struck down the new provisions, and Tuesday's primary elections will proceed under the previously existing Georgia law.
Under the legislation sponsored by state Republicans and passed by the Georgia General Assembly, registered voters were to present one of the following items when going to the polls: a drivers license, a current US passport, a government employee ID card, a military ID card, a tribal ID card, or other government photo ID. Other identification such as a birth certificate, a student or non-government employee ID or even a Social Security card were not to be accepted.
Forcing voters to have the additional identification would have disproportionately placed a burden on the elderly and the poor, who are less likely to have a drivers license, passport or other types of photo ID required under the law. In addition there are substantial costs for such forms of identification It is estimated that 675,000 registered voters in Georgia do not have a photo ID.
In Georgia, a drivers license or state photo ID costs $20 for five years or $35 for ten years. People without drivers licenses face the additional burden of getting to a location to obtain one. For instance, Georgia identification cards were on sale in only one location in Atlanta, Georgia's capital, a large city with a population of 5 million.
The Georgia law was struck down July 5 by Judge Harold Murphy of Federal District Court, who cited the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution, ratified in 1964, which bans forcing voters to pay poll taxes before being allowed to vote in federal elections. This practice was widely used by Southern states to prevent blacks from voting.
On July 12, the Georgia Supreme Court denied an emergency request to overrule a court order that blocked enforcement of the new voter photo ID law. It is likely that chaos could still ensue at the polls during Tuesday's primary election as poll workers scramble to revert to the old regulations at the last minute.
In Arizona, Proposition 200 was signed into law in 2004. ID rules were cleared by federal officials last October, and were first used in local elections in March. The law is highly restrictive and is aimed overwhelmingly against the state's large Latino population, as well as the poor and elderly.
Proposition 200 made Arizona the first state to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Citizens who do not have such proof—such as a birth certificate (cost—$15) or passport (cost—$85)—would be required to obtain one to exercise their right to vote.
Arizona has consistently ranked 49th or 50th nationally in voter turnout. If anything, the new regulations will serve to further hamper voter participation. The state is also one of a handful already being monitored by the Department of Justice Voter Watch because of a decades-long history of voter intimidation and harassment at polling places.
Proposition 200 also includes highly controversial restrictions on legal immigrants from obtaining "federal benefits"—and fines of as high as $750 and four-month jail terms for public employees who make an error in assessing an individual's citizenship status.
As with other policies being enacted across the US, Proposition 200 will have a chilling effect on voting rights and voter turnout Further, it is combined with other grossly antidemocratic regulations aimed against immigrants, working families and the poor. It is facing a legal challenge by the Hopi Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens and League of Women Voters of Arizona.
A lawsuit filed on May 9 was brought by several Hispanic groups. Opponents of the proposal say its sponsors have ties to white supremacist groups, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens.
In Pennsylvania, a bill cleared the legislature in late February, but was vetoed by Democratic Governor Edward Rendell, who cited the ruling in Georgia as a recent precedent. Under the proposed law, each voter would have had to show election workers a form of identification such as a drivers license; US passport; student, employee or government ID; or county voter registration card before being able to vote.
Current state law requires identification only from people voting in a polling place for the first time.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about half of all states require some sort of identification at the polls.
Intimidation of voter registration workers
One of the more sinister means by which voting is being restricted is through attempts to intimidate those who seek to register voters.
In Florida, the League of Women Voters (LWV) filed suit against new rules by the state legislature which place prohibitive demands on them. These rules impose fines of $250 for every voter registration form the group files more than 10 days after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form that is not submitted, even if it is due to a hurricane or other unexpected event.
The law is clearly aimed at organizations which conduct voter registration drives. LWV officials explained that their procedure after conducting a drive is to take the time to review registration forms to ensure that they are accurate and complete before turning them in.
As a result of this recent law, the LWV has stopped registering voters pending the outcome of its lawsuit against the draconian measures. While the move is unprecedented in the League's 67-year history of registering poor, minority and less educated voters who would otherwise not be a part of the electoral process, the group says it does not have the resources to pay such heavy penalties.
In Ohio, Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell, the current secretary of state who is running for governor, has put in place "emergency'" regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly legitimate registration practices.
Blackwell has come under scrutiny for his office's conduct during the 2004 presidential election, in which Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry lost the key state to Bush. Allegations of improprieties include lost and incomplete registration lists, as many as 300,000 missing votes—including provisional and absentee ballots—and predominantly minority voters being made to wait hours to cast their ballots, with many finally forced to abandon their efforts.
Blackwell also acted vigorously and successfully to keep third-party candidates off the 2004 ballot, including Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and the presidential and congressional candidates of the Socialist Equality Party.
Under the new Ohio regulations, registration workers—even volunteers—must personally take forms they collect to an election office. Organizations that run registration drives generally have workers who register voters bring forms back to supervisors, who can then review them for errors. Under Blackwell's edict, everyone involved in the registration process could be committing a crime. Blackwell's rules also prohibit people who register voters from sending forms by mail. That rule itself violates federal election law.
Needless to say, these rules could effectively shut down voter registration drives in Ohio leading up to the 2006 election.
Another means by which the Ohio government is disenfranchising voters is through its disregard for the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) of 1993—commonly known as the "Motor Voter" law for its requirement that states provide voter registration opportunities when residents apply for drivers licenses—which also contains a requirement that voter registration must be offered during most transactions at public assistance agencies.
Congress included this provision to ensure that those who do not visit motor vehicle departments still have an opportunity to register to vote. Citizens with low incomes are among those least likely to have drivers licenses and therefore the public assistance requirement is crucial to include them in the political process. It is this aspect of the law that Ohio has ignored. Many other states have failed to comply with other parts of NVRA.
In Washington state a new law prevents people from voting if the information they provide when registering to vote fails to match information on other government databases For instance, if a person registered for unemployment benefits resides at one location, but moves and registers to vote at a new address, that person could lose the right to vote. People who have recently married or have a hyphenated last name and commonly use only one name could also have their voting rights denied.
Beyond Florida 2000
The current assault on voters' rights is being carried out in the name of preventing election fraud. Following the 2000 elections, millions of people were outraged by corrupt practices employed by Florida election officials to take people off voter registration roles, block people from getting to polls, print confusing and misleading ballots, and not count tens of thousands of votes.
In the wake of this assault on voting rights—and in a climate where the Bush administration has pushed through attacks on a wide array of basic civil liberties—state legislators have been emboldened to call for even more regressive measures to restrict ballot access. The thrust of official action on voting rights issues today is directed against the elementary rights of the population. The mass media, a co-conspirator, conceals these facts from the American public.
While most of the reactionary measures have been pushed by the Republican Party, the Democrats have given only lip service to opposition. The raft of new legislation demonstrates that the major political parties fear, above all else, the independent participation of working people in politics. Increasingly, "democracy" in America, a country run by a ruthless financial oligarchy, is a hollow shell.
Subject: you can't see reality like this on Paddy Mcfreeper's site


Author:
chillah reporting from G8
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/18/06 9:39pm

Putin Jabs Bush: ‘We Certainly Would Not Want…The Same Kind of Democracy As They Have in Iraq’


During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” CNN’s Ed Henry called it a “tough jab.”
[> Subject: Who Would But, Who Cares.


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/17/06 8:07pm

You're right.

If it is, indeed, my site you are referring to 'Pinky', You are absolutely correct that I would not put such crap on it voluntarily.

It is, however, entertaining to watch you play 'Ping Pong' with yourself because not many seem to want to partner-up with your slant on life anyway.

Poor girl, just doesn't play well with society.
[> [> Subject: I'll back off if you


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/17/06 10:05pm

...just say you see the light. Or are you one of them who would rather pray for the rapture,and not have to admit the coup was a big mistake.

If you don't, I will happily risk a little embarrassment just to pointing out your apparent blind eye to the obvious.

And furthermore, if you can't admit your wrong venture forth at least some economic reasoning.

When one chooses a party, I think they should be willing to speak of their grasp of workable economics.

You call me a Pinko but it looks like you don't have a clue.
Are tariffs a bad idea? Should we raise taxes on the top 1%? How in hell are we going to get out of this mess? Dump it in the lap of a Democrat once the treasury is run dry and every other country on earth wants to see the dollar worth less than the lire? Was that your purpose?

In art there are deconstructionists. I think in psychology, there are destructive people. They may be self-destructive on a small scale or on the world stage. Just cry uncle. Say it. Cheney, Bush, Rove and Rummy are crazy and they are ruining everything for everybody. And Bush is getting even with his mom and dad at the world's expense.

So far all I get is "You're a commie pinko and I'm a republican because rove is a genius and shut up about my president bush"

That is authoritarian speak!
[> [> [> Subject: More Ravings Than Sensible Rhetoric Maybe?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/18/06 9:39pm

'Authoritian Speak'?

I think not.

Quite frankly I'm not quite sure what to think.

Your musings befuddle me I think.
Subject: Israel? Palestine?...Who's The Enemy Here?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/17/06 6:57pm

Israel? Palestine?...Who's The Enemy Here?

This is excerpted from a 1946 volume of 'The Book of Knowledge'

...As time went on, there was rioting in the Holy Land.

In May, 1939, the British offered a plan to put an end to the strife between Arabs and Jews; this plan was set forth in a document called a 'White Paper'.

The British proposed to allow 75,000 Jews to enter the country over a period of five years. After that time there would be no more Jewish immigration.

The British would then set up an independent Palestine, bound by treaty to Great Britain.

The Jews were to have full political rights in this new state.

World War II Postpones The Problem Of Palestine

The 'White Paper' satisfied meither the Arabs or the Jews but, in September, 1939, World War II broke out and the British postponed furhter discussion of the Palestine question.

During the war, the Jews of Palestine supported the 'Allied Cause' wholeheartedly.

They sent their young men to fight against 'The Axis'; their industries helped supply the Allied troops in the Middle East.

With the end of the war, the matter of the future of Palestine came up again.

An important Jewish body, The Jewish Agency,laid a definite plan before the British Government.

Among other things, the agency demanded a Jewish State be set up in 'The Holy Land' and that unrestricted Jewish immigration be permitted.

In August, 1945, this program was approved unanimously by the 'World Zionist Conference' meeting in London. (Zionists are Jew that support the Jewish colonization movement in Palestine.)

Conflict Develops Over Jewish Immigration Into Palestine

The 'Jewish Agency' program was a long range affair.

In order to meet immediate needs of Jewish refugees in the war-torn areas of Europe, the Zionists demanded that 100,000 Jews be admitted at once into Palestine.

The British refused but, announced, however, that 1,500 Jewish immigrants a month would be admitted.

The Zionists declared that this offer was entirely unsatisfactory.

The Arabs of Palestine were bitterly opposed to the program as set forth by 'The Jewish Agency'.

They received the firm support of their fellows Arabs in other lands.

In March, 1945, the states of Egypt, Syria, Labanon, Transjordania, Iraq and Saudi Arabia has adopted the charter of a new 'Arab League'.

The League vowed thet it would not permit the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine.

To show their support of Palestinian Arabs, Arab mobs in Cairo, Alexandria, Tripoli and other cities north of Africa looted Jewish stores, damaged synagogues and attacked Jews.

On November 14, 1945, President Harry Truman and Foreign Minister Bevin of Great Britain announced a British-American agreement on the subject of Palestine.

They proposed to set up a 'Joint Committee of Inquiry' to examine the problem of Eurpoean Jews and Palestine.

Bevin added that Palestine would become a 'Trustee State' of the United Nations Organization and that it would have self-government in time.

It seems liklely that ther will be no futher official movement in the matter until the Joinr Committee of Inquiry makes its report.

One reason why the 'Palestinian Question' is such a difficult one is the neither Great Britain nor the United States is willing to make enemies of the nation belonging to the Arab League.

There are vast oil deposits in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other othere Arab States in the Middle East and both the British and the Unites States Are vitally interestewd in those oil deposits.

And so the vast continent of Asia is in turmoil but, the situation is not hopeless. There is still hope-a real peace-if the reasoanble hopes of native peoples are fulfilled and if purely national interests give way to the world family of nation
[> Subject: Define "reasonable" and "native"


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 3:12pm

"There is still hope-a real peace-if the reasonable hopes of native peoples are fulfilled and if purely national interests give way to the world family of nation."

1 - The Hebrews are the only "native" people. They've been there over 3000 years. They're the only ones who've set up a native gov't there.

2 - The neighboring countries' hopes are for the extinction of the Jews. We didn't think that was reasonable when Hitler tried it. What have the Jews done in the last 60 years, for that to change?

3 - If we're gonna do away with "purely national interests", in favor of a "world family" ... why don't the Arabs take the first step, and welcome back the "refugees" they kicked out of their own countries? In other words, all the Egyptian "palestinians" go back to Egypt, the Jordan "palestinians" go back to Jordan, etc, etc, etc.

4 - If you look at why the Arab League was set up, it's earliest goal was to create an Arab nation of the countries that are now Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Syria controls Lebanon, and uses that as a base to attack Israel. Coincidence? I don't think so.
[> [> Subject: Palestinians


Author:
Eric Swedberg
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 8:48pm

The Arabic word for Palestinian is Falasteen. The old Greek word (which the NT was written in) is Philistine. So you can see, they have roots back to biblical times too.
[> [> Subject: not true walter


Author:
l
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/14/06 10:34pm

1 - The Hebrews are the only "native" people. They've been there over 3000 years. They're the only ones who've set up a native gov't there.


You can't just say stuff and it will be so.


You are saying that before 1948, before Jews were resettled, the Palistinians didn't have a gov't? Not true.

That is a wrong assumption. i don't think the bible even supports this and as an argument it sure blows a hole in your anti-mexican stance since Indians were here first. The modern palistinians were living in Jerusalem when the "jews" came back in 1948. The civilized answer to these kinds of problems is diplomacy, compromise, peacemakers, and a few peacekeepers.

Send Bolton and Bush to alcatraz with a keg and a few pigs.
[> [> [> Subject: Not just "saying stuff"


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 7:14am

The Hebrews/Jews are the only people who've been there (over) 3000 years ... and the only ones who've had a gov't that was set up there.

After they founded their original country, they were invaded ... and external gov'ts imposed ... by various groups. But the Hebrews/Jews were always there. At no point did all the Hebrews/Jews leave.

Every other gov't that ruled there, was imposed by occupying forces. Just like, until very recently, Lebanon's puppet gov't (to Syria). Or dozens of European/Asian countries to the USSR. But those countries didn't cease to exist. Nor did Judea/Israel.
[> Subject: So.....Who's The Enemy Here?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 9:01am

Who should we stand behind?

Remember, basically the U.S., under Harry Truman(DEMOCRAT) and Bevein of Great Britain, pretty much bailed on Palestine out of obvious lack of a viable plan and just simple frustration of how to best protect their agenda, (OIL), and political position.

All the argument about theological history is not going to get an answer.

What if the U.N. all of a sudden awarded gaurdianship of America to Al-Qaeida?

Which side of the line will you fall on?
[> [> Subject: Bolton gives us to Al Qaeda?


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 8:52pm

What if the U.N. all of a sudden awarded gaurdianship of America to Al-Qaeida?
-----------

Hmmmm-so you don't think Bolton would veto that? Maybe not.

Bush knew this all along. If you can't beat em, join em.

Can I have one of them cute donkeys? I need to illegally immigrate to mexico or canada.
[> [> [> Subject: So, Now The Symbol For The Illegal Alien Is The Donkey As Well?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 7:43am

Hmmmm!

"one of them cute donkeys?"

Interesting.

Geez! 'Pinky' you're covering all bases aren't you?

Anybody else you going to insult today?
[> [> [> [> Subject: you know- the donkeys that tall ex-cia "badboys" get to ride on in Afghanistan


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 1:15pm

Arbusto bin laden's brother.

Not to mention Bush family's Saudi business partners. Bin Laden who??????????

You know- Rich Al Qaeda tourists er, terrists.
[> Subject: whose the enemy here? maybe the destroyer of your reality?


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/17/06 6:06pm

"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."--John Kerry* on U.S. servicemen, April 22, 1971

"The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan."--Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, July 16, 2006
[> [> Subject: A Little Family History 'Pinky'?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/17/06 6:57pm

Or you just quoting from the history of some of your role models?
Subject: Maiming and slaughter break--have some Saturday nite Porn


Author:
Al Qaeda may hide breasts, and we will all live in peace
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 1:22am

The summer that Coleman took me into his confidence about Faunia Farley and their secret was the summer, fittingly enough, that Bill Clinton's secret emerged in every last mortifying detail—every last lifelike detail, the livingness, like the mortification, exuded by the pungency of the specific data. We hadn't had a season like it since somebody stumbled upon the new Miss America nude in an old issue of Penthouse, pictures of her elegantly posed on her knees and on her back that forced the shamed young woman to relinquish her crown and go on to become a huge pop star. Ninety-eight in New England was a summer of exquisite warmth and sunshine, in baseball a summer of mythical battle between a home-run god who was white and a home-run god who was brown, and in America the summer of an enormous piety binge, a purity binge, when terrorism—which had replaced communism as the prevailing threat to the country's security—was succeeded by (expletive), and a virile, youthful middle-aged president and a brash, smitten twenty-one-year-old employee carrying on in the Oval Office like two teenage kids in a parking lot revived America's oldest communal passion, historically perhaps its most treacherous and subversive pleasure: the ecstasy of sanctimony. In the Congress, in the press, and on the networks, the righteous grandstanding creeps, crazy to blame, deplore, and punish, were everywhere out moralizing to beat the band: all of them in a calculated frenzy with what Hawthorne (who, in the 1860s, lived not many miles from my door) identified in the incipient country of long ago as "the persecuting spirit"; all of them eager to enact the astringent rituals of purification that would excise the erection from the executive branch, thereby making things cozy and safe enough for Senator Lieberman's ten-year-old daughter to watch TV with her embarrassed daddy again. No, if you haven't lived through 1998, you don't know what sanctimony is. The syndicated conservative newspaper columnist William F. Buckley wrote, "When Abelard did it, it was possible to prevent its happening again," insinuating that the president's malfeasance—what Buckley elsewhere called Clinton's "incontinent carnality"—might best be remedied with nothing so bloodless as impeachment but, rather, by the twelfth-century punishment meted out to Canon Abelard by the knife-wielding associates of Abelard's ecclesiastical colleague, Canon Fulbert, for Abelard's secret seduction of and marriage to Fulbert's niece, the virgin Heloise. Unlike Khomeini's fatwa condemning to death Salman Rushdie, Buckley's wistful longing for the corrective retribution of castration carried with it no financial incentive for any prospective perpetrator. It was prompted by a spirit no less exacting than the ayatollah's, however, and in behalf of no less exalted ideals.

It was the summer in America when the nausea returned, when the joking didn't stop, when the speculation and the theorizing and the hyperbole didn't stop, when the moral obligation to explain to one's children about adult life was abrogated in favor of maintaining in them every illusion about adult life, when the smallness of people was simply crushing, when some kind of demon had been unleashed in the nation and, on both sides, people wondered "Why are we so crazy?" when men and women alike, upon awakening in the morning, discovered that during the night, in a state of sleep that transported them beyond envy or loathing, they had dreamed of the brazenness of Bill Clinton. I myself dreamed of a mammoth banner, draped dadaistically like a Christo wrapping from one end of the White House to the other and bearing the legend A HUMAN BEING LIVES HERE. It was the summer when—for the billionth time—the jumble, the mayhem, the mess proved itself more subtle than this one's ideology and that one's morality. It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America.



from Roth's The Human Stain (is William Johnstone this much fun?)
[> Subject: Please Take Your Meds


Author:
Crazy Al
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/15/06 10:41pm

I may be nuts, but you are BONKERS!
[> [> Subject: huh? at least explain why


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/16/06 1:22am

How did you come to that conclusion. That was well written and entertaining so why do you say I am bonkers. I didn't even write it.
Subject: is Northcoast hacked or filtering words?


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 11:30pm

Precondition failed message to most of my posts and won't allow me to communicate this in comment section to Tryan. Can someone please try to post a comment on the gambling bill article.
[> Subject: I dunno, but ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 3:16pm

I get the same message trying to add the first comment. However, we seem to be able to reply to existing comments okay.

I tried hitting the computer, kicking the monitor, and throwing the keyboard across the room. None worked. I think it's something on his end.
[> [> Subject: Not sure what is up


Author:
THartill
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 4:50pm

I just tried posting something as well. Anyone no what a precondition is?

I'll repost the article and see if it works.
[> [> [> Subject: Reposted and seems to work


Author:
TH
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 4:56pm

[> [> [> [> Subject: You may be able to post ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 7:09pm

... but I still can't. Still get the "precondition" error. And now the site looks odd, too. All the formatting is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Strange


Author:
THartill
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 8:09pm

I wonder if some kind of bug came through.

Dkos is totally fouled up as well, seems both sites have been having trouble since early this morning. Anyone know of any other sites having problems?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: progessive sites having trouble


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 9:31pm

airamerica.com and thinkprogress.org were down all morning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Blue Oregon also


Author:
THartill
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 9:37pm

Not sure if I will pull out the tinfoil hat though. Although I predict there will be some discussion of it over the next few days.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: crap does this mean we aren't progressive enough here


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 11:07pm

or do we already look funny enough no one wants to mess with us. i like apparently this is my life's picture link. i'd like it if scandal's dog peed and if the corn would burn. and if the two old people would do something, anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's safe here


Author:
lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/13/06 11:30pm

Patrick evens it out.
Subject: Bradwood: How Much Cost To 30 Miles Of Security Up-River


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 9/06 8:50am



Shut up and eat it

Stephen Forrester Editorial - 'The Daily Astorian'

Homeland security is an excuse to ignore public concerns about LNG
David Addington is hardly a household name. But as Jane Mayer reveals in the current issue of The New Yorker, Addington is the architect of President Bush’s drive to usurp congressional authority and hijack time-honored military justice procedures in a time of war.

In a similar vein, only a handful of Clatsop County residents knows of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). But FERC has the unfettered power to change our lives at the mouth of the Columbia River. FERC may site a liquefied natural gas terminal without deferring to the state of Oregon. Amendments to give the states a role in the LNG siting process failed in the House and Senate.

The only recourse for the state of Oregon, Astoria, Warrenton and Clatsop County is to become an intervenor in the LNG siting process. Today marks the deadline to file as an intervenor in the application by Northern Star Natural Gas to site a liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood.

Today also marks the deadline for the public comment period. The state of Oregon is asking that the comment period be extended for 30 days.

How does exclusion of the people closest to a proposed LNG terminal resemble the Bush administration’s exclusion of constitutional and military precedent? Both are about supreme, unfettered executive authority, which is a theme in Washington these days.

The LNG process is also about the marginalization of remote, rural places.

You are a less-empowered American if you did not give a campaign contribution to the president or if you’re not living in a major metropolitan area or if your safety is trumped by homeland security.

That’s what’s happening to the Columbia-Pacific region as FERC takes up Northern Star’s application to build an LNG terminal at Bradwood.

The disconnect for residents of Clatsop and Pacific counties is twofold. We have virtually no say in the process. Secondly, the U.S. Coast Guard’s discussions about transporting LNG up the river have been shrouded in secrecy.

As with so many things these days, the feds are able to turn public matters into secret matters once they declare that homeland security is at stake. Of course, the topography surrounding the Columbia River is no secret. Rand McNally and other more sophisticated Web-based mapping sites offer detailed information on the lower Columbia.

The Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office reportedly has been asked to escort LNG vessels upriver. We also hear the Astoria Bridge will be closed when LNG ships are passing underneath. If there would be an LNG ship arriving every two days, as is predicted, that would be a significant disruption of traffic.

Given the apparent disruption of river traffic by LNG ships, it is a reasonable conclusion that if it is proved both necessary and safe, any LNG terminal should be sited west of the Astoria Bridge, not upriver at Bradwood.

But it is difficult to have that kind of discussion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, because it is merely looking at applications without any comprehensive look at the effect these siting decisions will have on localities.

Secrecy disguises ignorance. Mayer’s article in The New Yorker notes that the Bush administration has had little dialogue about the Constitution, because the Bush White House has no one at a high level with a constitutional law background.

Similarly, because the Coast Guard safety document is secret, it is impossible to know whether Northern Star is giving the Coast Guard the whole story.

The third thread that is critical in LNG siting is the Bush administration’s eagerness to do the bidding of large corporations, even if the outcome risks the health and safety of common citizens.

The message to Clatsop and Pacific counties is very simple: Shut up and eat it.
Subject: polarization entrepreneurs?


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 8/06 12:04pm

I recently heard about polarization entrepreneurs on television tonight. They attempt to create communities of like-minded people being aware that these communities will not only harden positions but also move them to a more extreme point.

The program went on to show how cities could be totally divided on everything, with extreme thought prevailing. It was rather chilling.

I like it when we have confictions, and of course I like it when someone agrees with my confictions, but this program was sort of scary in how it showed the extremes. These people showed no tolerance for ideas other than their own. All ways of thought were either strongly for or strongly against.

I see the lables that get slammed against people and it is rather alarming. One cannot express a single thought without some sort of pigeonhole being empressed on them. YOu can see it with so many controversies right here in our county. I hate expressing ideas because I hate being labled something I know I'm not but you sound like a fool as an adult saying, "Nah-uh, that's not who I am or what represents me."

I wondered why people felt the need to do it. I guess it is this polarization? Maybe some people are paid to do it?

When I looked it up on the net I found this info. "Polarization is sometimes an excellent strategy. If the goal is to move people to a more radical position, and to entrench their positions, it's often a good idea to try to ensure that like-minded types are speaking mostly with, or least listening mostly to, one another. (Some student organizations are products of polarization entrepreneurs.) Authoritarian governments try to plan polarization, and sometimes they succeed; Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm can be seen as case studies."

It might be comfortable inside of polarization but it seems pretty certain that extremes in thought and philosophy are damaging in communities and manipulative. I think most political parties have a practice of polarization. It is hard for everyone to feel like they are honestly being looked after in government when the political parties are based so strongly in platforms and agendas. If they have a committed agenda how can they be adaptable to the issue at hand in the times and local environment and how do I know my best interests are always being looked at no matter if I am a part of the political party who voted for the person?
[> Subject: Locally you gotta trust people to be looking out for the what's best


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 1/06 5:52pm

for the area unless there is blatant proof that they're not. in my opinion thats where people go wrong when they run against someone who has held a position for a long time here. when the new person slams the encumbent the people who have voted for that encumbent over the years get offended. when someone from out of town comes here and tells local people that their government is screwing them it makes them angry. because basically they are saying that they are idiots who got the wool pulled over their eyes and no one wants to know that. if you want something from someone you have to make them see what smart a person they are to see something in a new way.

i think that polarization is going on with lng. the way people are made to think drastically on one side or another and that there's nothing in between. your either a crook (carpetbagger) or an idiot on one side, and a screaming liberal fearmonger who doesn't want growth on the other. your not even allowed to be someone who just wants more information. you should of been reading about it all along, blah blah blah. sometimes i wonder what good having a government is? your not even allowed to vote for the best person for the job, just the people that got the most votes in the primaries and were allowed to run in the general. ack! now i feel like maybe everything i think has been manipulation.
[> [> Subject: I don't think you have to trust anyone


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 1/06 7:36pm

I think it is not wise to blindly trust. We elect a government to look out for and safeguard our economic interests. I think everything else is up to the individual. I think individual's keep an eye on the government in those areas that concern them. Doctors will keep an eye on the government to ensure that those economic matters that concern them are being properly safeguarded and taken care of, plumbers are doing the same thing as are fisherpersons. Some laws I would like to see repealed are laws that to me "blatantly" favor a certain industry while impinging on my freedom. I despise buckling up. It grates on my neck, sawing across it. It doesn't matter what I buy for my car, I would have to buy it for more than one seat as sometimes my husband drives. Also, sometimes we take his truck and sometimes I drive his truck so I would need to buy more and sometimes I ride with others. Anyhow, the seat belt "law" may "save lives" but only if you are actually in a wreck. Having never been in a wreck, for the other 3 out of 4 of us it is a stupid law only in place due to insurance companies having a lot of pull and lobbyist to fight for them.
[> [> [> Subject: Unitl you're in a wreck, then it might...


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 2/06 6:16am

..come in handy. With as many cars as there are around here in the summer...it is a very good thing to have. They sell little dealies that you can put over the seat belt where it hits your neck, and they slide on the seatbelt so that people of different heights can use the same one.

I trusted local govt, until I had to actually face them about a problem I was having. Then I saw how they didn't seem to give a crap about myself or my wife. From then on, We've been watching them. They still are all screwed up, but we aren't having the wool pulled over our eyes.
[> [> [> [> Subject: I want as little dictation as possible


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 6/06 7:49pm

I appreciate the fact that many, especially at the ocal level, might be giving a lot more time then they are being paid for but that does not mean I am willing to give up my freedoms for it.

Yes, a belt might come in handy or it might be what kills me, trapping me in a burning vehicle or sinking one. It should be my decision based on the fact that I was smart enough to get a driver's license. I am tired of having to care about peace officer having the right to pull me over and invade my privacy because he observed I was not wearing a shoulder strap. Or, using this same officer for sting operations for violating pedestrian walkings? Puhleeze. Our police force is understaffed as it is. The first thing I would encourage officers in small places to do is ignore such petty violations and focus on those things that truly impact a community> DRUGS and other forms of abuse.

Sigh, so much for less government.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: You ever think that those "petty violations" are


Author:
Jim
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 5:27am

what reason the cops use to pull over possible drunk/drugged drivers? Now, I'm not advocating alot of govt interference in our lives, believe me. I agree that the "stings" for crosswalk violations is a bit much. But then you have that girl that was hit on a crosswalk in the middle of the night back a few months ago. I'm sure her relatives were asking where a sting was then.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Stings? A Bit Much? I Beg To Differ!!!


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 8:17am

The thing that really gripes me is and I assure all of you that I am no saint, when I do stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, those inconsiderate bastards local and otherwise that come blasting by me with no concern whatsoever about a person in the crosswalk trying to cross.

One other thing: You assholes that stand on the corner at a crosswalk, clearly show your intent to cross would you or stand back far enough that the driver knows you don't intend to cross.

Crosswalk Stings?

Absolutely and with my blessing!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maybe a sting for the pedestrian, to make it fair


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 4:33pm

Where the cops could be sting drivers and go around giving tickets to all of those people who pretend to be crossing, causing people to slam on their brakes jar thier necks, contort their spines, spew forth hatred from their lips, toxic acidic reflux causing cancer in the esophaguses. Insurance claims through the roof. Whoow, there goes the profits for those guys.

Jim - Personally, I don't like bringing into play real people who have had a tragidy and aren't hear to speak for themselves. None of us really know if they want more stings. We don't know if what they really wanted was their daughter to quit drinking or stop pub hopping, or to have been married two years ago to that nice man Frank, who plays the organ at church, so using them in this discussion isn't valid, to my way of thinking.

But I do understand your point. My counterpoint is that we do live in the USA and we are not supposed to be living in spite of anything we are supposed to be living in pursuit of it. I mean that we are presumed innocent yet when you live in a community of presumed guilt you live in a community where police get to have privileges that they shouldn't. There is no reason for policemen to be doing checks for pedestrian crossings violations, crosswalks stings are an assinine thing to be pulled over by some with a gun. Stings presume guilt. They look for and target guilt. Petty guilt are the pedestrian and seatbelt violations.
[> [> Subject: So, Who Exactly Is It We Should Trust?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 9:02am

Whose truths should we declare as appropriate?

Don't you think first we should educate ourselves on any particular issue impacting our life quality and livelyhoods here rather than putting faith in someone under the presumed concept of leadership and wisdom to make those decisions for us?

The smartest advice that could be given to someone in this community is to trust nobody but, hold them accountable and take the responsibility of educationg yourself on the issues at hand as well.
[> [> [> Subject: Little Green Paddys advice


Author:
Dr. Sidney Schaefer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 11:59am

The smartest advice that could be given to someone in this community is to trust nobody
?///////////

Why do you trust the assministration when wiser people can see them for what they are?
[> [> [> [> Subject: What's this got to do with this conversation?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 3:56pm

As usual, your assumptions and generalizations reinforce the perception of the idiot you tend to continue to convince everybody that you are.

And your ilk actually believes it can lead this nation?

I will repeat this: "I am a Republican, not a zealot."
[> [> [> [> Subject: I was pointing out to people that


Author:
Dr. Sidney Schaefer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 5:14pm

..you are the wrong person to be taking advice from. You have no instincts about what kind of leaders are best for people. You campaigned for and spread propaganda for Bushco and the Swiftboaters and still have the audacity to "advise" and condescend to people on their local gov't. If you don't trust these local politicians, go ask Tom Delay where you can find a place to live, where you will fit in. (where those "good ol' boys" you claim to detest, don't exist)

If you promise to harrass every civil servant, no one will want to serve except YOUR best friends. Then YOU can get your special favors. Skating rinks anyone?
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: And What does This Have To Do With This Conversation?


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 7:58pm

I can give all the advice I want.

Not that anyone would heed anything you would have to offer, in my view, but, you have as much right to do so
as I do.

Those that read or hear it can make up their own minds as to how much they wish to absorb from you or me and that's the way it should be.

Who are you to judge who is the right or wrong person to listen to?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: WH talking points (destroy democracy)


Author:
Dr. Sidney Schaefer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 9:50pm

"I can give all the advice I want"

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I notice that YOU are a zealot as to debunking anything Mr.
Gore has to say. You don't care what's at stake.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There's Nothing To Debunk About Al Gore....


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 8/06 6:14am

He is what he is and nothing else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Generation Investment Management


Author:
Gore is More
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 8/06 12:04pm

In late 2004, Gore launched an investment firm, which he chairs, to seek out companies taking a responsible view on big global issues like climate change.

Gore's group, Generation Investment Management, was created to assist the growing demand for an investment style which can bring returns by blending traditional equity research with a focus on more intangible non-financial factors such as social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.
[> Subject: Polarization-divide and conquer


Author:
Lee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 1/06 10:02pm

I think government should have the best interests of the people as its only purpose, just like your friends, parents or churches do. This is the test a politician must pass. Does s/he care about the people? (think of some indicators)
Subject: Wind Generators For The Home


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 7:55am



Read More On This System
Subject: 1000 Gallons A Month Bio-Diesel For $55,000 + Shipping + Set-up


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 7/06 7:49am


(The actual total space for this unit and its tank farm will require about 2000 sq. feet of floor space)

Anybody see an issue with marketing and sale of this product?

You think all public, local, agencies should commit to swith over to Bio-Diesel?

Read More On This System
Subject: Home Hydro Power Generation


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 6/06 2:08pm



Read ore On This Alternative Energy Source
[> Subject: THANK-YOU


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 6/06 2:08pm

This is a very helpful link! How many families, especially around here, have a spring running nearby? I bet quite a few. This is a doable thing. It would be funny to be one of the first communities in the PacNW to go mostly off grid, or where PP&L owed us money!
Subject: anyone else get a flyer on their car at freddies tonight?


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 3:20pm

says:
"why is it important to you?
Do you think we are at war to protect our way of life, our liberty? then why is the US gov taking awaay our rights, in the name of freedom? why is the gov fighting to watch you, you and me, under patriot at sect 801-802, says that all people that any law, anywhere, will be considered a terrorist. right now there is a case in clatsop co. #057239 where th accused was detained cuffed and transported without being accused o a crime or being read his miranda rights. judge nelson ruled that being detained cuffed and transported without being accused of anything was inadmissable by the court. (we are all terrorist and guilty untill proven innocent ... what?) if you want to watch your rights be stripped of us go to courthouse 100 @ 9:30am on friday and watch or support. to learn more about the patriot act visit infowars.com "

aside from lack of capatilizing the rest of the above is verbatim so don't be writing me with corrections of court procedures or anything.

i went and checked the courthouse schedule for friday the 30th and that case number is some guy named kevin lesher charged with a duii and driving while suspended. so its nice that someone loved him 'n all enough to do up this flyer but damn i would a been mad if i'd a gone down there thinking this was something really big and it was just this piddly little case. the guys even got himself a lawyer. i don't see how this has anything more to do with a patriot act case then any other case on the schedule that day. also i think that i was told in criminal law 101 that they dont miranda you unless you are going to be asked questions. just because you are arrested for a drunken driving doesnt mean you are going to be mirandad and it doesnt mean your rights were violated if you werent. your arrested take your ride get thumb printed and charged with duii. you call someone to come and get you. no miranda. sorry lady and don't put a flyer on my car cause your boyfriend or kid got caught drinking and driving then whine and want to find a way to bail him out of it. now maybe i will go just to see what they look like to see what car they get back into so i can put a flyer on their car. something like a flyer for aa meetings. or stupids anonymous.

maybe im flying off the handle but jeezzzz. this is not a patriot act alert. its a whiner (or wino) who got caught.
[> Subject: RE: Miranda warning ..


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06/30/06 12:52pm

I believe they have to mirandize you, if you're placed under arrest ... whether they intend to question you or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if the flyer was put out by the lady I once served on a DUI jury with. She refused to convict because the police "harass" her son, "when he's only had a few beers".
[> [> Subject: lay people arguing law then we can discuss this mole on my arm


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 4/06 12:55am

however i think they do not have to mirandize you. it is to inform you of your right to remain silent. they do not have to inform you of this right if they do not intend to interrogate you or question you in regards to a crime. if the person is swerving all over the road and then gets out of the car, refuses to take a breathalizer test and pukes on the cop he does not need to be mirandized. the cop is not going to question him any further. any idiot that confesses to a policeman "spontaneously" is under the influence of some substance or wanting to get a guilty conscious off his mind. however i am sure that if an admission of guilt came into play miranda would quickly be read.

in clatsop co. my friends who have experienced it say that in the state cars that have them a breathalyzer is done right there and a duii is charged and a ride to the station house follows. no miranda read, no questions asked. booking follows with fingerprints and pic. then you get to call someone to come and pick you up or you sit in a jailcell until you are sober enough to walk home (or cab it). Or you take the breath alyzer at the station. if you refuse you are booked for refusing to cooperate. either way no further questions are being asked. think about this when a cop pulls you over if you've been driving too fast he often asks if you have been drinking or are under the influence of substances, he doesn't read you your miranda rights first.
[> [> [> Subject: i know nothing of miranda, but i too have a mole....


Author:
scott
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 4/06 5:08pm

you spoke eloquently (and I know not if correctly or incorrectly), but what of the mole?
[> [> [> [> Subject: its is very dark and has a slight bump in the middle with no hairs


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 1:03am

do you think it might be cancerous?
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: i'm not a doctor, but i play one on the internet. . .


Author:
scott
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 9:05am

as i previously stated in regards to miranda, i am in no position to offer legal advice, and likewise, i have no medical or homeopathic training whatsoever (although i have been known to sew up my own cuts), so am therefore unable to offer a useful diagnosis on the aforementioned mole.

please do keep me informed if you find a good mole specialist in the area, as i may wish to investigate the possible removal of one which occasionally presents a problem for me while shaving.

and perhaps in the meantime you may wish to be distracted from your worries regarding the state of your epidermis by viewing some entertaining or distracting internet spectacle? if so, i would recommend:

http://www.boingboing.net/

or

http://www.artsjournal.com/

or

http://www.mjt.org/

best regards,
[> [> [> Subject: If they don't "mirandize" you ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 11:34am

... anything you tell them, while in their custody, is inadmissable in court. As is any evidence such "blabber" leads to.

So, if they don't mirandize you for DUI ... and they take you into custody ... and you confess to being a serial killer ... they can't use that confession or get a warrant based on it.

Just something to bear in mind. Not that anyone here is a serial killer.
[> [> [> [> Subject: LOL - if we were inclined to get our legal and medical advice from a forum board


Author:
Sandy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 3:20pm

Now that sort of creeps me out! We always hear about people hiding in plain site. Makes you wonder how many serial anythings w/huge egos would want to sit right under the very nose of someone who is the "NDAA state director and co-founder of the Media Relations Committee."

I just went to his website to get a quote on him and I followed the link to his NDAA profile and I found a few quotes that really rankle me:

"Marquis then pounded his point home, declaring, “The difference is that in this job, you get to be a part of justice not once in a while, but every single day, in every decision you make.”"

“When I speak at high school career day programs, I tell the students that being a prosecutor is the only job where you get paid to do the right thing. It’s what I call a morally luxurious job.”

I think bologna. I know Marquis has refused to accept plea bargains unless people confess to crimes that they did not commit, compounding their sentence. In my opinion, that is not the right thing. I understand it is how you clean the books up and maybe get a tougher sentence for someone but you don't then say you are morally superior or have a morally luxurious job. The person who actually comitted the crimes that Marquis made someone else claim to do to is free to continue their crimes. A lie is a lie isnt it? Doesn't it just show all of that person's family that the town/county is crooked if the DA is forcing someone to admit to something they didn't do, for whatever reason? Is there ever a good enough reason for a DA to lie or force someone else to lie? Doesn't it always have the reprecussions of people mistrusting the people that they are supposed to be turning to in their times of need?
Subject: Bio_Diesel:1000 Gallons A Week, The Size Of A 'Fridge, $55,000


Author:
<img src="http://fotohole.homestead.com/pellya5.jpg">
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 1:32pm

More Detail Click Here!

Now, The Port of Astoria Energy Committee says they are scratcihing around for $10,000 for some kind of 'Bio-Diesel' project.

Why?

For $55,000 the basic 'Pelly A5' is available and ready to start producing Bio-Diesel right out of the box and can be expanded to increase production as demand dictates.
[> Subject: Let's try for a photo here


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 2/06 8:50am


[> [> Subject: how much is raised for the tapiola park? lets get those people


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 1:14am

to do a fund raiser for this. don't say never happen or not in my life time. my mom says that whenever someone says that she just laughs and points out that was what was said about communism falling apart and the berlin wall coming down. things of huge importance happen in every lifetime.
[> [> [> Subject: Taggart And Hartill Say They Can Build The Same Thing....


Author:
Patrick McGee
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 8:05am

For $10,000 but, will do so in "little bitty steps" rather than an agressive and ambitious stategy to get this project under way with a marketable product 'NOW!'

Who do you know that uses enough diesel to see some interest in the alternative fuel?

You think a thousand gallons of the stuff could be sold a month through a coperative of some sort, especially if the price is really right?

I say "Hell yes it could!" and time is of the essence!
[> [> [> [> Subject: Biodiesel


Author:
Meg
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 11:53am

I just moved to town and drive a diesel Jetta. I had been running on bio-D in Northern CA and also the Seattle and Portland areas, and was really disappointed to find that a town this cool (and my new home) doesn't have any. So YES!, I personally will buy about 20-30 gallons per month. So are there 49 others who will too?

Also, I don't understand why, just because it CAN produce 1000 gal/month, that it needs to. Can anyone explain?

I think that "if you build it, they will come", because every day at least 2 or 3 people ask me about my biodiesel bumper stickers and say they have a diesel pick-up or some such.

Thanks,
M
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: does anyone know one of the gates?


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 12:23pm

but actually i think we need to do it locally. we have the talent. so if people want it then go after it and step up not on people to get it done. we hafta make this a place where people want to try stuff out. i sort of want a downtown college cause i like the idea of what that sort of culture can do to our community but i loathe the idea that the whole county will hafta pay for something that only astoria benefits really economically from. i love the idea of biodeisel because of the cultural mindset that comes with it however what sort of economic benefit does everyone get from it? i think that is what tryan is learning he has to fight with. maybe not fight but think or contend with. you just can't ram things down peoples throats without people being all angry and full of hatred even if it is for their own good.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: We're working on it


Author:
That Taggart guy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07/ 5/06 1:32pm

In a nutshell, we are starting a biodiesel pilot project aimed at public agencies.

If all goes well, we hope to be able to provide for the private sector in about a year or so.

This is a community effort with some hard working folks behind it to get it going.
glenn
Main index ] [ Archives: 123[4] ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Shaming/flaming is prohibited, be an adult. While posts can be removed at the discretion of the forum administrator, or at the request of the person starting the thread, there are no guarantees so be thoughtful in what you post as it may remain in cyberspace (or someone else's computer) indefinitely. Thank-you for your respectful comments!
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.