Redstate

You can demonstrate that "the Democrats" made you lose. But you can only get a small number of them formally on the record. However, while I'm not an expert on House procedures, aren't there some opportunities to propose amendments that can force votes?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

you get majority votes in the committees. That is how Republicans kept Dem alternative bills from coming to a vote. A discharge petition can be used, like was used to get BCRA out of committee, but it requires a majority of the House.

The other practice that the Dems used pre-1994 and I'm not sure if the Republicans used it or not, is taking a Republican bill and in the Rules committee changing the name of the writer of the bill to a Democrat and then passing it.

...there were less alternative media channels for us to use. Heck, didn't anger over the state of affairs energize talk radio?

Actually, I don't know if it did. I wasn't really involved in politics back then, and when I was, it was for the Other Side...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Most people still get their news through tv or the morning paper. Another problem is that the people who do get their news through alternative media pick media that reinforces existing belief.

Don't believe me ? Tell someone that the hottest year on record was 9 years ago and 2006 was sixth in a declining temperature series. When they are done looking at you like you are from mars you will truly understand the power of alternative media.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

Actually when they are looking at you they are thinking that you might be reading the blogs that give you the "facts" you are looking for. Every respectable scientific organization, including NASA http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html agrees the 2005 was the hottest year on record. they only real place that says that 1998 was even tied with 2005 is the Union of Concerned Scientists (which is a group that many oil companies would love to portray as liberals).

your comment "2006 was sixth in a declining temperature series" attempts to wash over the fact that in the prior 8 years 5 of them have been in the top ten.

About the only thing we can agree on it that MSM sucks. while you may have a problem with "existing belief" you might want to do a bit of research to check to see, even if rarely, it might be accurate.

I'd first have to believe there was a problem. Then I would probably want to have a hydro power condemned and a forest set on fire to deal with it.

Unfortunately the best I can do is present the facts and then watch you put out even more hot air in response. Which will just make things worse by your way of thinking

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/2006_Set_To_Be_Sixth_Warmest_On_Record...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-03-02.asp
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1869962,00040003.htm

Please note the original source is the World Meteorlogical Organization which is a UN agency. Legitimate, scientific ? Maybe yes maybe no. Biased toward global cooling probably not.

I do agree with you though. It pays to do at least a minimal reality check. You might try giving it a whirl in the future.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

Your comment that 2006 was sixth in a declining series would be great news if our entire history consisted of the pastt 10 years. Did you read the links you posted? there is consensus on every one of them that:

"The ten warmest years have all occurred in the last 12 years, according to the United Nations weather agency."

"Since the start of the 20th century, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 0.7 degrees Celsius, and the increase has accelerated in the last 30 years."

Did you miss the part on the Nasa site that actually ranked 2005 #1?

A decade
A quarter century ?
A Century ?
A millenium ?
Recorded History ?
The Geological Record ?
The lifetime of the Solar system ?

If you pick your window on the data you can draw all kinds of conclusions. If you take a look at the longterm record we are still not as warm as we were 2000 years ago or during the medieval warm period.

In the 70's it was widely felt that global cooling was going to be the big problem. Now one of the solutions put forth for global warming is to spray sulfurous particulates into the stratosphere. What the enviromentalists don't mention is that you could accomplish that by just repealing the EPA regulations on gas and get rid of catalytic converters.

When you speak of consensus on this subject think twice and think again. There isn't any. And when you get worried about the changes remember, we are in an Ice Age at the moment. Its not normal for the poles to be frozen and the middle east used to be green.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

The last time there was no recorded snow in CT this late in the season was during the administration of James Garfield. You can love it or you can hate it--you can blame Homo Sapiens or Mother Nature--but to deny global warming is to be the Baghdad Bob of climate change.

Thank you for demonstrating that if you give something a memorable name and then start hammering people with it sooner or later they will be certain its true.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

...Mere coincidence? I think not!

there is absolutely no scientific basis for what you are stating.

If there is one thing that there is debate on is the accuracy of long term temperature charts. but even if you believe the long term charts http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comp... we are still warmer than the warmest year in the past 2000 years... of course if you want to use say a 500 year window one could say that our average between 1500-2000 is below the average of 800-1400.

you state that there is no concensus... just curious what you consider consensus 100% agreement between thousands of climatologists? what's the line 99%, 90%?

"What the enviromentalists don't mention is that you could accomplish that by just repealing the EPA regulations on gas and get rid of catalytic converters."

what a novel idea... nearly every scientist on the planet agrees that CO2 contributes to warming (the 'debate' is whether it is from anthropogenic sources). I am curious where you find scientific evidence that increasing emissions will reduce warming.

An encyclopedia anyone can alter is hardly definitive.

As to the cooling effect of sulfur pollutants heres a picture. In order to save a thousand words I use one img tag.

I do have to thank you. My original post was about people not being open to ideas that they hadn't been prepared to accept. I wanted to use a simple incident that shows how the MSM can achieve a lock on someones meme complex to the point where they could not accept new input on a subject. You have done so admirably.

P.S you do have me on one point I meant to say no valid consensus.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

now we just have to get the pesky EPS regulations off volcanos and life as we know it will continue.

I do have to agree with you. had your basic premise actually been founded on fact, I would have certainly proven your point.

If a three letter acronym is to tough for you to spell correctly, and you think I was speaking of the specific sulfur from volcanoes and not the mechanism of cooling you probably won't get why I consider your post amusing.

You still support basic premise still continues to be that most people once brainwashed by the MSM tend to stay brainwashed. To change would be to admit to themselves they were wrong initially and thus they reject contradictory information out of hand.

You are a perfect example of this start to finish. Your initial post involved a study that as stated was disputed. The follow ups presented ran on autopilot.

Ask yourself what is the contradictory evidence to AGW that you are aware of ? What is the climate history of various parts of the world compared to today ?

Just as a starter you might try thinking about the norse settlement on greenland.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

You seemed to ignore what I wrote regarding the specific 'hockey stick' chart. the fact that it is on wiki does not make it a factually incorrect representation of the Mann chart. That said. I spoecifically said, in reference to your statement regarding long term temps...

"If there is one thing that there is debate on is the accuracy of long term temperature charts. but even if you believe the long term charts http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comp... we are still warmer than the warmest year in the past 2000 years... of course if you want to use say a 500 year window one could say that our average between 1500-2000 is below the average of 800-1400."

The Mann chart has been discredited by numerous reviewers including the NAS. The NAS does a rather pretty sidestep by referring to it as one not particularly important piece of data.

I just wanted to point out that wikipedia is not a good source. It makes a nice starting point for research but even wikipedia acknowledges they have a problem with controversial topics.

Are we hotter now than hundred years ago ? Yes by about .6 degrees. What does it mean ? Don't know. Neither does anyone else for certain. Will we keep on getting hotter ? Ask the sun.

The point is once again that the alternative media has minimal effect on the overall discussion. People reject out of hand what they are not willing to accept. How many people fact check the evening news ?

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

is 500,000 years or more. Whatever. To some people, for what reason I cannot say, climate change, like the Trinity or free trade, is a matter of theology and not empiricism. Well, my house is 56 feet above sea level, so I should be fine over the course of my lifetime.

Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.

But seeing as you signed up 2 hours ago, I would be willing to bet your just a disposable persona made to get a jab in and disappear.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

What a wonderful phrase. It evokes such imagery and yet, it is so appropriate!

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

sorry for being new to this site. Are the 'facts' more 'factual' the longer you've been 'here'. :c)

But you have usually caught the things that have been beaten to death.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

because up until 1992 I was a democrat.

I don't recall much about procedures and honestly didn't pay that much attention to the GOP and what was going on with them. Somewhere between 1992 and 1996 my move to the GOP began-although I wasn't the political junky then I am now.

I do think you make a good point-back before 1994 Rush Limbaugh was just getting a national name, and he was the only guy in town with that type of show, now there are conservative radio people all over the place.

There was no Fox News channel, and the only real 24/7 channel was CNN.

Also there weren't blogs, and while blogs mostly cater to the political junkies, they are still an avenue of desemination that wasn't really around in the early 90's.

I think the dems in their new majority will be operating under some new rules, and may not have the same cover they did previously, but I think they will still have the media mostly in their back pockets, so I am not sure Dem screw ups will get the same attention the GOP ones did.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...that Libs really don't mind whacking baby seals.

Thanks, and buh-bye.

this election wasn't really about "Moving America Forward" or doing what is best for the country, it was all about getting the opportunity to whack conservatives and extract some revenge, right?

BDS to the extreme.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

This photo is now the answer to everything I guess.

Personally, the Republicans need to try something because their performance over the last few years was the reason they lost in November. Remember Congress had a lower approval rating than Bush.

I get up every day, work in the private sector, pay my taxes, take care of my family, raise my kids and do my weekend a month as a reservist and deploy overseas.

But I'm a staunch Republican.

Yep, you and your weak Dem buddies are going to get more of my money. How's it feel to be a looter of the productive?

It's only one election cycle. We'll still out live, out produce and out prosper the petty.

The Patriot Act reauthorization and the 700 miles of fencing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

Some of that funding for it was included in the DHS bill that was passed. You don't need all of the funding for a capital project that will take years to finish in one chunk up front.

I'm not so sure we will ever see it, but the Bush administration did say they are really going to build it. I'm willing to wait and see on that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Although you can post a bond for it so not really. But at any rate the money's committed.

Unfunded mandates are not "less spending", whether they're going to be paid for with federal, state or local money.

So if/when democrats put up the money for that fence, or say increased education aid to fund NCLB, will they be increasing spending?

but you will not see the fence. DHS is already talking about "virtual" fences (i.e. cameras, sensors and drones), and the GSA is running the numbers on those and coming up with about twice the cost of bricks and mortar (or steel and barbed wire). Plus, EPA is complaining that the placement of the fence will disrupt the habitat of some endangered voles or some such twaddle. These have always been virtual fences, in my opinion. The Club for Growth would never let a real one be built.

That depends on what you consider useful.

What would you have considered useful, in the last Congress?

Personally I consider most legislation to be more useless than useful no matter who is advocating it. But that's just me.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

On that we agree. Most legislation should never see the light of day.

On a realistic note, we would probably disagree on which handful should see the light. :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

nt

Easy for you guys to accuse the dems of raising taxes now though if they actually try to balance the budget... it's the 2nd time through this play though so it'll be harder to get as much mileage out of it, especially if the democrats are cutting significantly while raising taxes. Which will be necessary, the mess we're in.

I could just turn on MSNBC or Air America. You got anything useful to say?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Since you scrolled down to reply to this instead of that

did it take college?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

And get into a public fight with some people who want to keep the spending they're cutting, if they can. The american people can understand balancing a budget.

If you want to identify the what is it now, 450 billion out of the discretionary budget, be my guest, be advised that number comprises almost all non-defense discretionary spending so you've gotta cut some fighter planes or stop the war in Iraq.

And maybe expand product liability
seeing as we are at it the environment could use some more protection

a 2nd great depression should be just what your party needs to cement its hold on the congress.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

...because they're going to try raising taxes. Have we gotten to the point now where telling the truth is considered demagoguery?

Good grief, if you and they believe that's what needs to happen, go for it and stand proudly by it. Don't run from it. Just come out and say that a tax hike is in the best interest of the country. I'd respect that, even if I'd disagree with it.

I'm all for balancing the budget. What they should do to balance it -- what the GOP should've done when they were running Congress -- is find ways to cut costs from entitlements. It's the elephant in the living room of our budgetary woes.

Entitlements account for about 35% of the federal government's total budget which, itself, represents more than 20% of our total economic output. Those are both staggering numbers.

And, what's worse, our nation faces a future shortfall of tens of trillions of dollars at the hands of the two big entitlement programs: Medicare and Social Security.

It may not be politically popular -- but sometimes, just sometimes, we should expect our politicians to be statesmen.

Off to top of my head, the entitlements are almost a trill and a half while the discretionary is a little over a trill. That's more than 35% of the budget.

The government is less than 20% of the economy although it's in the teens. 14 trillion / 2.5.

The entitlements are run as their own programs, paid for off of their own (regressive) taxes and separated from discretionary finances run off of the progressive income tax. (The IOU argument is hogwash, SS is running a surplus right now and has to store that cash somewhere, treasury bonds are as good as it gets. It doesn't break the laws of accounting)

Medicare has huge unfunded liabilities in the future, SS much less so although significant. If we're gonna cut entitlement spending, why didn't you guys cut those taxes?

Which military programs need cutting according to you?

and federal revenue decreases, what's your excuse going to be?

They need to put you in charge of my competitors marketing department. "Just keep raising prices, you'll make more money"

I'm not in congress. But I imagine they'll say "It didn't happen under Clinton and neither Reagan's nor Bush's tax cuts created expansions in revenue equal to what they cut, plus the most optimistic analyses of supply-side, done by Bush's guy Mankiw, estimate clawback at about 60%. So sorry, we really didn't expect that."

Please elucidate.

And increased non defense discretionary spending faster than any period in American History since WW2.

That is correct. The Republican Congress was the biggest group of big spenders in modern American history. And it cannot be explained by increases in Military spending. It was plain old fashioned oink oink political pork, at a level Democrats could only dream about.

Cut taxes and increase spending.

Sounds very useful to me.

It was plain old fashioned oink oink political pork, at a level Democrats could only dream about.

In 2001 and 2002 while they had control of the Senate and the biggest (by a long shot) increases were occurring? Funny how people always forget that bit of info.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Were they responsible for the bad intel on Iraq during that time and 9/11 too?

Clearly this is to satisfy the little wet dreams you guys used to work up over at Josh's old stomping grounds. Clearly you add no value here.

Clearly, you're overdue for a disabled account.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I think keeping the morons around spices things up and reminds us of what we're up against.

Anything substantive to add, or are you just going to link to things we already know and have me disable your account?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

n/t

We want these people to take ownership. This fellow just signed for everything bad that will happen in the next two years.

Everything.

Go him!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

The realists are now in charge, Grover. Sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way.

Sieg Heil!

Oh, sorry. I think it's your moustache that triggered that reaction. I don't know what came over me.

Run like Reagan!

The realists are now in charge, Grover. Sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way.

Oh, you mean like your party shut up for the past six years because they weren't in power? Oh, that's right. I've heard less whining and crying from my newborn nephew. At least Grover Norquist is offering constructive instructions.

Here's an idea. Prove us wrong. Cut taxes on the middle class. While you're at it, cut spending. And for Pete's sakes, could you insert the philosophy of 'victory' into your dialogue on Iraq?

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Reply to "ShowMeConservatism":

Oh, you mean like your party shut up for the past six years because they weren't in power?

No, they spoke out while the microphones were left on..

At least Grover Norquist is offering constructive instructions.

Mr. Norquist has antagonized and energized his political
enemies. Be prepared for his scrap iron to be shot back
at you..

Here's an idea. Prove us wrong. Cut taxes on the middle class.

Sorry, taxes are likely to go UP, progressively.. It will
take a while to get back on track with the Clinton/Rubin
plan of retiring debt (hmm, a conservative idea I happen
to like!)

While you're at it, cut spending.

Give me the Iraq war; I'll end it and give you a spending cut.

And for Pete's sakes, could you insert the philosophy of 'victory' into your dialogue on Iraq?

Victory to me means: pick your REAL enemies, then make sure
you can fight them while holding onto your moral
authority, political backing, financial resources, and
founding principles. This is why you lost the election,
gentlemen.

I'll be glad to visit your blog.. Please show me some
principled conservatism, something we can build with,
not the neocon radicalism we've seen so much of lately..

-- KY3 Democrat, always ready for the next vote.

how to use his veto pen. He has promised to do so.

Increasing taxes, escpecially at a progressive rate is a sure fire way to tank the economy with it's full effects felt about 2 years after the increase is put into effect. Let's hope your fearless leaders have at least learned that lesson.

And if you REALLY think that Clinton is responsible for the budget sanity in the 90's, I suggest you look at who was in charge of congress at the time (congress authorizes spending), read the "contract with America", look at historical headlines that show Clinton opposing welfare reform (until it was rammed down his throat and he took credit for it), the internet bubble and the boost in tax receipts as a result if it, etc....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm curious as to what you "progressives" think that we should stand for over here, and why. Today of all days, I could use a good laugh.

And no, being a permanent minority doesn't count.

PS If you wildly exceed my expectations and actually come forth with an accurate, thoughtful synopsis of conservative political philosophy, your shelf life here could greatly increase.

I've discovered in my few years of engaging in these types of discussions that "principled conservatism" is what you believe in and everyone else is "unprincipled."

In reply to Icythus:

I'm curious as to what you "progressives" think that we should stand for over here, and why.

I am well aware of mainstream American conservative principles, some of which are:

- Limited government, no excessive taxations
- Protection of individual liberties
- Protection of property rights and self-defense
- Living within means, self-reliance
- Protection of rights to assembly, association, worship

..among others. I'd have a big job to counter these points, and I don't intend to because they are well-founded and have given us the major outlines of our way of life.

But here's where I have problems with conservatism as it is practised today, two main points:

One: The US constitution was written in, and most of American life lived under a basically rural experience, only recently urban. The conditions of self-reliance and social assembly have been altered to the point of needing new political contracts (for example, regulation of drinking water, public education, tolerance of minorities, wage standards, etc) "Us liberal/ progressives" believe that there is a social/group context that conservative principles do not take fully into account (for example: your right to own a condo does not imply your right to dictate that only non-gays can live in it).

For me, conservatism fails the "larger context" test of a complete theory. I believe government has a big role to play for the good; that some rights are contingent upon larger social issues; and that private property implies public stewardship. Those are principles also...

Two: In its rush to become a governing majority, mainstream conservatism made a commom bed with some real shaggy political animals:

- so-called neoconservatism, which is actually a discontented radical socialist offshoot once found in the Democratic party;
- "Imperial Americans" and "American Civilizationistas" of the Gringrich stripe;
- religious culture warriors (who retain their beliefs but are now begining to rethink their alignments and tactics);
- "drown government in the bathtub" types like Mr. Norquist;
- various AEI eggheads who are watching their agendas and reputations getting flushed down history's loo;
- and assorted witless screamers such as Rush "Citizen service is a repudiation of the principles upon which our country was based. We are all here for ourselves" Limbaugh, and Ann "Democrats are a vast sleeper cell" Coulter.

So for me, modern conservatism fails the "picks rational friends" test.

So Icythus: Purge your radicals, hush your screamers, get back to basics, and lead from the right. I'll listen to you; but I'll insist upon an airing of my views also..

-- KY3 Democrat, ready to teach if called upon, to learn if fortunate.

The conditions of self-reliance and social assembly have been altered to the point of needing new political contracts

There is an established method for altering the political contract, aka the Constitution. Any reason you are unwilling to use it? Failure to do so makes you seem, whats the word, "radical".

Everybody else gets to be excluded, not to mentioned scorned. What a pity that we're going to make your side work, now that it's in charge, huh?

Sparky, I'm sorry to burst your Progressive Man's Burden reality-bubble here, but the only thing that you could possibly teach to us is that the Democrats haven't actually learned a blessed thing from victory, alas.

And, as we already knew that, I'm thinking that we'll just skip ahead to the point where you start up on that post where we threw you out for being boring mocking your greatness. I believe that toogreatforredstate.com is available as a domain name...

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

as stated in my tag line, socialism has been tried and has been found wanting. There are MANY real life examples to choose from if you need them.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

guffaw at the silliness of this

It will
take a while to get back on track with the Clinton/Rubin
plan of retiring debt (hmm, a conservative idea I happen
to like!)

Except that the largest single chunk of "debt" is in the form of obligations to the Social Security system, closely followed by obligations to the various other "trust funds" (or "lockboxes" as Gore would call them).

Retiring debt as an objective is not only not feasible but financially boneheaded.

...for a variety of reasons. You're just picking the ones that you think will cause the most mental anguish. Although everyone notice: even this guy tacitly admits that the Democrats won't stop operations in Iraq. Apparently, even gaining a legislative majority isn't enough for them to change their basic behavior...

Moe

PS: Out of curiousity, when you say 'neocon', do you mean 'apostate', or 'Jew'? Please answer in your next comment here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

with people who have demonstrated they are unwilling or unable to contribute in any meaningful way.

are right about Grover, and maybe he wasn't kidding when he talked about drowning the U.S. Government in a bathtub. (I know, streiff, Moe Lane, and gamecock will say I'm on again about my Iran fixation. Guilty as charged.)

are not about economic policy but about his ongoing hugfest with the Saudis.

It's way past time that conservatives boycott Grover's Wednesday morning meetings. What's good for Riyahd is not necessarily good for Peoria.

Well, not really, but I play one on this blog.

Anyway, you'll need to do a lot better than this if you want to get a good martyr vibe going. May I suggest fulminating about the Jews? That's always a reliable way to get banned here.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.