My numbers were off a "little" (OK Bill and Rob -- a whole lot!)
But I still will not be surprised if the Democratic nominee is Al Gore.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rhetorical Flourishes!
Our Motto!
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"
Disclaimer!
Everything I say here is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, any organization I belong to, the Roman Catholic Church, and (especially) my wife!
Read it at your own risk.
Read it at your own risk.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(254)
-
▼
May
(20)
- A quote you should find really disturbing
- Free Rides to the Airport
- Did she say that?
- Enjoying the Show
- OK Kiddies -- Die for Gaia!
- A quote I really like (for my 300th Post)
- Trinity Sunday
- Sometimes Politics Takes a Back Seat
- Why did the chicken cross the road? Updated for 2...
- Post Racialism
- The Farm Bill
- The cure for the common liturgical dance
- What was that?
- West Virginia
- Democracy!
- My Prediction for Primary Day
- The Wright Fiasco
- Thoughts on Immigration
- More proof my wife is a saint
- Happy May Day!
-
▼
May
(20)
Email me
thecatholiclibertarian -at- yahoo.com
Posts
11 comments:
They pretty much can't nominate Al Gore. That would nullify all the votes of all the voters in all the primaries. The only way they could nominate Gore would be if both Obama and Clinton stepped aside so that he could run. Ain't gonna happen.
>The only way they could nominate Gore would be if both Obama and Clinton stepped aside so that he could run. Ain't gonna happen.
Which is what I think may happen. Unlikely, but if they keeps going on, I think it may actually happen.
A few things we know about you, Anthony -
1) You like McCain.
2) Your predictive capacity when it came to primary day, May 6, 2008 were a bit... off.
3) You think Al Gore is going to be our next president.
4) You're quite partial to VODKA.
(*SHRUG*)
A connection...? (*GRIN*)
Well... at least you're wife is a Saint and your kids are wonderful.
BILL
>1) You like McCain.
Yes, very much
>2) Your predictive capacity when it came to primary day, May 6, 2008 were a bit... off.
Just a bit
>3) You think Al Gore is going to be our next president.
Just don't tell my buddies in Blogs for McCain
>4) You're quite partial to VODKA.
Actually, I am more into wine. Vodka just gets me through primary days.
A lot of partisan Democrats I know wish Gore was the nominee.
Everytime John McCain opens his mouth it seems to push me another step closer towards deciding there's simply no way in hell I'm going to vote for him.
When the most "positive" reaction I have to hearing him speak is to mumble "what a frigg'n idiot" then there's a HUGE problem, Anthony.
BILL
Bill -- I take it you were not to thrilled with McCain's speech on cap and trade.
Look -- I think Gore's scaremongering on global warming is nothing more than that -- scaremongering. Having failed to force the US into a command economy for all those other reasons, the collectivists have discovered climate and now you have to let them run things TO SAVE THE PLANET!
However, to simply ignore environmental issues is just as silly. Global temperatures have increased, and while I am not convinced it is totally due to human activity, reducing carbon emissions in and of itself is probably a good thing. What McCain has proposed is way to address the problem without turning controll of over lives over to Al Gore.
If you are refering to his gas tax proposal thogh, I agree that it is too much of a political ploy.
Anthony...
READ
MY
LIPS...
McCain is STUPID.
READ
MY
LIPS...
To prove my point... only STUPID people support cap and trade.
SMART people know such a system is smoke and mirrors and will simply create more government, more bureaucracy, and enrich financial middlemen who neither create energy nor fight pollution, but instead simply take a middleman's slice of the "trading" profits.
Next...
You're not stupid... are you Anthony? I only ask because only a STUPID person would equate being against BAD "environmental" polices with "ignoring environmental issues."
You may be wrong quite often, Anthony, but you don't strike me as stupid. Nope. You strike me as a very bright guy. Therefore... I'll assume you simply forgot for a moment whom it is you're chatting with and threw out the whole "ignoring environmental issues" strawman by rote - perhaps because such lame tactics work with dimwits you may be more used to "debating" with. (*SMILE*)
I understand you like McCain. I'm not telling you you can't. (*SHRUG*) I am telling you that *I* don't like him and as I originally wrote... pretty much everytime the guy opens his mouth I like him less.
If you're interested in having ANY shot at all of convincing me (and the many true conservatives who feel as I do) to vote for McCain come November... stick to attacking Obama. "Defending" McCain to me just forces me to examine again why I hate him and reminding me that I hate McCain ain't the way to get me to vote for him. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
OK Bill, we get the point, you really do not like McCain.
There is a global consensus to do SOMETHING about climate. Even "warming deniers" like me realize that reducing carbon emissions is a positive good. I prefer cap and trade to the collectivist prescriptions of people like Gore.
I'd also point out that it is not far from what Milton Freidman proposed to deal with environemntal issues.
Nothing anyone says or does will make you like McCain, I get that.
"Global consensus...?"
First of all, Anthony, about 1/5th of the world's population is illiterate - totally functionally illiterate. From there I suppose we could parse education levels...
(*SNORT*)
So much for "global consensus."
You call yourself a global warming "denier." O.K. Fair enough. At least we're thinking along the same lines. Whether or not the earth is heading for the next mini-ice age or an era of global warming, there are many questions to answer and cost/benefit calculations to be done concerning how to deal with the answers a scientific consensus agrees on.
I have nothing against reducing carbon emissions. I just don't think cap and trade as envisioned by either Gore OR McCain is the answer - and with all due respect to the late Milton Friedman, just throwing his name out there ain't gonna cut it for me. (*SHRUG*)
Is McCain's plan less economically damaging than Gore's (or Obama's)? Maybe. For the sake of argument I'll stipulate (on blind faith) that it is. But as I've explained time and again to you (and folks like Moose, Ed, and Jay), I'd not absolute on the "lesser of two evils" argument. Sometimes the wrong direction is simply the wrong direction and as I've noted time and again, perhaps with a President Obama as opposed to a President McCain the Republicans in the House, Senate, and in governor's offices and legislatures throughout the land will somehow find the backbone to defend the American People against "Democrat" big government.
Anthony... I've had my full of REPUBLICAN big government.
As to my dislike of McCain and my (relative) hope concerning Obama, all I can say is that McCain had BETTER knock my socks off during the presidential debates and Obama had better go totally off the rails if McCain hopes to pry my vote away from Barr, Paul, or perhaps even Obama himself.
To get back to the "theme" of this thread... Anthony... you're NOT helping McCain by talking to me and folks like me about a "global consensus" that - even if it existed - would still face real scientific scrutiny.
POLITICALLY...
POLITICALLY...
POLITICALLY...
Anthony - McCain's hope lies not in competing with Obama for the votes of the "environmentally conscious" or Hispanics who don't have a problem with illegal immigrants - the DEMS are gonna KEEP those people - McCain's hope lies in convincing me that he won't be "Bush III" - only LESS conservative! (And Anthony... that ain't gonna be easy.)
BILL
I'm like Don Michael Corleone in the sense that whenever I try to get out, something is always trying to pull me right back in...
(*SMILE*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121072757568390373.html?mod=todays_columnists
"In his climate speech on Monday, Mr. McCain exhibited (as the press usually does) a complete lack of consciousness of the fact that evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming. Yet policy must be a matter of costs and benefits, adjusted for the uncertainties involved. Which brings us to today's irony: He who finds a six-figure earmark an affront to humanity is prepared to wave through a trillion-dollar climate bill without, as far as anyone can tell, a single systematic thought about costs and benefits."
(Jeez, Anthony... obviously Jenkins is yet another "lurker" hanging on to every word and concept I type in order to claim my brilliance as his own.) (*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
Post a Comment