1) Correlation is not causality.

2) According to Rush's own words he attributes the election of Democrats to Congress in 2006 to their promises to try to control escalating energy prices.  But, again according to Rush's own words, if there wasn't a problem until after the Democrats were elected, how could they possibly have run on promises to fix a problem that doesn't exist. 

Does being a dittohead mean never having to understand what logic is?

this is on freerepublic, which is right wing, but it's remarks by robert kennedy junior.  he notes that we could eliminate imports from the persian gulf by raising fuel effeciency standards by 7.6 mpg.  but that's something rush and his republican pals in congress have always opposed.  The reason we have the standards we do now is because of carter and the democratic congress. [and don't anyone give me the spiel about how they were the highest during the reagan administration, that's when the carter standards took full effect.  nothing to do with st. ronnie.]

in the past, whenever raising the standards has come up, it's always been a majority of democrats voting for and a majority of republicans voting against.  rush has always mocked the idea of fuel effecient vehicles.  he's always insisted it was your american right to drive the biggest gas hog you could afford.  and now that we're in the jam we are now in, he takes no reponsibility for an attitude he helped promote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863207/posts

Oh my, and are we surprised that Rush has little contact with reality these days.  Must be the oxycontin that has dulled his wits.  May even be the Viagra.  First he tried to get Republoicans to vote for Clinton and when that did not happen, he very belatedly and latently said, "Awww shucks, I mean vore for Obama cause he would be easier to beat.  Rush has taken so much junk he has lost his mojo.  Not only is his thinking so totally warped and worlds away from reality, he still assumes he is relevant.  I have some very far right Republicans who fine him very embarrassing, and their big wish is that he would just quietly fade away.

It's always easy to tell when Rush is lying.  You can hear his voice.

Doesn't war tend to raise oil prices?  Doesn't war in the heart of the world's richest oil region tend to raise oil prices ALOT? 

Oh, that's right - we're not supposed to talk about the "war", are we Rush?

Or the fact that OPEC is producing 100,000 barrels less than before in an effort to keep prices artificially high. If Bush were a real man he wouldn't be strolling with the Saudis hand in hand, he'd be bending them over and driving down prices one thrust at a time. But he ain't, so we get screwed instead. What a dolt we have for a president.

Not to mention today's statement by Iran to cut oil production - thus raising prices and decreasing supply.

I think we should get our armoried fleet and march straight to the capital of Saudi Arabia and Iran, must like the Israelis did when marching to Cairo.

As many of have been telling you, in all of your other screen names, when you suggest we invade another country, after you pal.

Show us that you've got a pair and march down to the enlistment office.

Stop running your mouth and for once in your life lead instead of following.

Thanks for the rant.  I am 28 and actually in the National Guard, and have been for 8 years.  I will not go full time military due to raising my 6 year old niece because of an extremely sad traffic accident that caused my sisters death.

I hope you swallow your tongue.

I agree with you on the gas thing, BTW. Darn saudi's are living high on the hog off of us as we provide free protection by having our fleet over there providing protection. They are a bunch of ingrates, them saudi's.

Them Saudis...maybe we can get Shrub's daddy to talk to them for us.  ;>)

Rush is a drug addict and a pig.

If I recall, he did commercials saying that if you buy drugs illegally, you support terrorists. He bought them illegally, he supports terrorism. Who listens to a non-admitting drug addict? DittoDum and DittoDee.

Them Saudis...maybe we can get Shrub's daddy to talk to them for us.  ;>)

Shrub's daddy HAS been talking to them - for years now.  In fact, he was having breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in DC with Osama Bin Laden's brother on 9/11 as the planes were crashing.....

Columbus,

That is great you are helping with your niece.  I am glad you were able to step up, and I hope you support those who want to extend benefits to those who have served.

I am all for extending benefits - but i think its crucial to provide many of those benefits as incentives to promote an extension of military service and used as a promotion for recruitment.

What do you think of McCain's lack of participation in the new GI Bill?

I haven't paid much attention to it.  The only thing I saw was a brief clip of him supporting it, but using it as an extension of service & recruitment solution as I support.  However, like i said, I havent paid much attention to McCain's view of it.

Columbus, he is not supporting it as of present time

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-urges-mccain-to-sign-onto-gi-bill-2008-03-19.html

Bush doesn't support it either.  He thinks it will cause some to leave the military for civilian life.

Bush doesn't support it either.  He thinks it will cause some to leave the military for civilian life.

Wow, guess you can't have people actually trying to live normal lives these days.  Just gotta keeping warrin' and killin' and bombin'. 

Did I hear someone say "draft"?

 

For years my cousin was in the military and after going to the first gulf war, and after an injuiry, he now works as a recruiter.  He says the GI bill enhancement would get many more volunteers for the military.  I have not thought of that but I suppose he does know what he is talking about.  He also says that it would also attract many more to National Guards duty, who then could be trained to be ready in case of a new threat.  For me, I favor not having a cowboy attitude like Bush has demonstrated and only going to war when actually you could be truthful about the threat.  However, I never expected George W to be honest even when it came to a cowboy-war he started.

I'm sorry for your troubles.

But you still want to send other fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles and even grandparents to fight new wars when we haven't wrapped up the two we've started.

If they can go, why not you?

WKING, I agree...there are others in the same predicament. Seems that some people have an excuse for everything. Hoping is goes well for your niece Columbus, but please, don't use her as an excuse.

An excuse for what?  Sacrificing the lifestyle and goals that I had in life to fulfill the promises I made when accepting the offer to be her god-father?

She is 6 years old.  I have no grandparents left, and only 1 parent left.  And no brothers/sisters.  I am doing what I need to do to give her the things my sister would have wanted - working two jobs to pay for private school, a college fund, etc.

I hate to tell you man, but I've done my fair share - more than many of you here have.  I volunteered to go to NO to help with Katrina, as well as went to NYC to help cleanup of the 9-11 tragedy. 

Dont give me this whole "use an excuse" b.s.  I have been, and am, fulfilling my obilatigation to this country and to my family.  More than many of all of you who sit around and play the partisan game while spending your free time defending people like Rev. Wright for his hate speech and telling others they should change their lifestyle to fit your wants.

By being a warmonger, you bring this on yourself.

I knew there would be no valid excuse to weasel your way out of my comments.

Funny that you would accuse Rev. Wright who volunteered for the Marines at a time that the country didn't recognize his Constitutional rights.

Didnt say anything about his rights or right not to do anything.  I accused him of hate speech, for what it is.

I'm not going to flag you (flags are just feeeling shields) but I would like to give you information on mental health issues.  When the foundation crumbles, we stumble... so let's listen to those who have. 

I accused him of hate speech, for what it is.

There's hate speech in virtually everything you post here, Columbus.

You're the one who wants to start more wars. We don't have enough people to fight the wars we've got now.

I'm not saying that what you're doing isn't admirable. You should be proud of what you've done and of the extra responsibilities you've taken on.

You've done more than most, but that doesn't change the fact that you want others, who've got the same responsibilities you've got, if not greater responsibilities, to fight in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

So then you agree that by drilling off the coast, anwr, and ND that we could potentially start on a track of domestic oil dependency until alternatives are available.  This would ease the american citizen pocketbook, alleviate the thought of war for oil, and give ourselves time to move on to alternatives.

More time?  We just wasted 8 years.  No more time for you - we're moving ahead (but you can come along if you like.)

Hell, we've wasted more time that that. You can go back to the first oil embargo in the late 70's.  We have done nothing, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Democratic Congresses, Republican Congresses. We have done very little, but we were happy because gas was cheap.

Agreed 100%.

You've just made a great argument for public financing of elections. Cut the special interest money out of it! 

If we were talking about healthcare you could make the same argument and it would also be a great argument for public financing.   

So then you agree that by drilling off the coast, anwr, and ND that we could potentially start on a track of domestic oil dependency until alternatives are available.  This would ease the american citizen pocketbook, alleviate the thought of war for oil, and give ourselves time to move on to alternatives.

Obviously, Columbus, you've forgotten that your boy George W. helped ban offshore drilling off the Florida coast a few years ago in order to help his brother Jeb win re-election as Florida's governor...

That brings up an interesting point when it comes to drilling and also with nuclear power.  Everyone seems to be in favor of it unless it is going to be near them. 

Florida is in no way a liberal or very environmentally friendly state.  But even their citizens did not want any drilling off of their coast, to the point where the republican governor had to pander to their wishes.  Apparently it's ok only if it takes place somewhere else and someone else has to live with the consequences.

I agree.

Rush Limbaugh has been beating the drum for nuclear power a lot lately.  I wonder how fast he'd change his tune if they decided to build a nuclear plant next to his bunker/mansion in Florida.....

I just said no excuses...others are in your position. Just don't promote others to carry on wars while you do what you SHOULD do..taking care of your niece. But DO NOT sit behind a keyboard and promote killing others.

I commend you for what you are doing..not what you are saying.

Quit pontificating. I ain't buying...you could be Karl Rove as far as we know.

It is really silly for any of us to complain about your decision.  But on the other hand, it also does seem  ridiculous for you to be so obnoxious in answering.  Sort of puts you right on their level.  I admire you for keeping your promise to your sister and see no other help for her, except you.  But, why answer by the hateful cracks about other people's beliefs.  They are free to have their own opinion as are you.  I think the problem is that this war is based on a pack of lies and if anyone is truly honest, Reverend Wright has nothing to do with this discussion.  By the way, like you he is free to say whatever he pleases.  When he choses to make thos obnoxious statements about my country , I ahve a right to object.  But when you get hateful and caustic in your arguments, do not expect many to even try to see your point of view. 

Note that I am not backing or agreeing with the two we have going.  There are extremely mixed views on them.  What I am talking about is a necessary (in my view) action against corrupt countries who are purposely strapping down American citizens.

corrupt countries who are purposely strapping down American citizens.

So when does the invasion of the RNC begin?

Why not talk to the corrupt countries instead of killing people like you and me? I know it doesn't sound reasonable but the sounds of 2000 pound boms sound worse. Don't you think there are people like you raising children because something terrible happened to their parents? People suffer in wars. Do you think those POLITICIANS conducting this OCCUPATION in Iraq are suffering?

I hope you swallow your tongue.

And we hope the same for YOU, Columbus.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself, using your niece and your dead sister as excuses for soewing your lies and venom here.  Why don't you just take some personal responsibility for the crap you post, and stop advocating wars that would be fought by others when you have no intention of fighting them yourself?

It's commendable that you took your niece in, but it will never make up for all the garbage you post on a daily basis here at MMFA.  BTW, since you're five years younger than my son, I'm old enough to be your father.  And if my son ever behaved like you do here, I would be totally ashamed of him.  I hope your family is equally ashamed of you.

Strange thing about this whole line of reasoning by our friend Columbus here is that it doesn't hold water. Why? Let me explain. I have a friend of mine who is also in the National Guard. He has 2 small children at home, 8 and 10 years old. He spent the first part of his adulthood in special ops, took part in the invasion of Panama, Gulf War I, and a bunch of other things that he can't tell us about. His wife passed away last year due to a severe bout of cancer. His National Guard unit is currently training up to ship out to Iraq at the end of this summer. Guess what he did?

Even though he was assigned to NOT go to Iraq, he put in his papers to ship out with his unit to go over there. He didn't want his buddies, and or his friends and compatriots to go over there and shoulder the burden without him, even though he has 2 children to take care of. He made the decision to go, and do his duty, and looks upon it to be a chance for him to protect his children in a way that most of the rest of us can only really dream about.

So, for Columbus, while I applaud and appreciate what you're doing with your niece, for your sister, I also just see it is an excuse. There are ways of doing it, my friend is doing it even though he hates this war, hates this President, and hates that we're in Iraq, he believes in his friends, and wants to support them in their assigned duties and mission. I've never been more proud to be his friend when he was telling me this.

Excellent points, ML.  And based on what I've gleaned about Columbus through his posts here, I can't help but think that his niece might be better off in a foster home.  She's getting a very skewed view of the world from her uncle....

 I think we should get our armoried fleet and march straight to the capital of Saudi Arabia and Iran, must like the Israelis did when marching to Cairo.

That's the answer - MORE WAR!  You're stupid.

War with Iran & the major corrupt oil producing countries is inevitable.  There is no way the US can take another (minimum) 10 years of this until alternatives are available.  Perhaps the threat of doing so to Saudi, Iran, and Venezuela will have a similar ending as Nixon's plan in the 70's to lower prices to normal w/o actually attacking.

War with Iran & the major corrupt oil producing countries is inevitable

Only by electing Grampy McMaverick.  Won't happen.  A Democratic landslide is the only thing that's inevitable.  Unlike yourself, the vast majority of this country doesn't like the endless killing of innocent people or wasting billions our hard-earned money that is now going into the hands of war profiteers.

You are really a shortsighted idiot.

What exactly makes you think that the other large fully industrialized nations of the world are going to sit back and let us screw with the place that produces a much larger percentage of the oil that they use than it does for us?

Do you really think China and the larger remnants of Russia, for example, would have no problem with the US declaring pre-emptive wars all of the over place and destabilizing oil supplies and messing up the gloabl oil prices?

Maybe we could get away with hijacking Venezuala militarily, only because we have a much stronger capacity for long range large scale operations that much closer to our own country, but we could not possibly sustain a continued state of war against multiple very well armed and supplied forces on the other half of the planet. 

What you put forward is a proposition of a full global conflict that will change the face of this world in a major way no matter what the outcome.  Think what a full draft, materials rationing and nationalization of industry as was necessary during WWII would do to an economy completely based on consumerism.  Think how far backwards the lesser industrialized and Third World nations will be thrown by this level of disruption of the global economy.  By the end a war for control of these resources would end up reducing the ability to obtain them and non-military demand for them.

Think of what happened to the last major nation with a strong military capacity that began an imperialistic war of aggression in search for resources and global control.

Do you really think China and the larger remnants of Russia, for example, would have no problem with the US declaring pre-emptive wars all of the over place and destabilizing oil supplies and messing up the gloabl oil prices?

Yes.  China is not going to want to put up with the corrupt pricing policies.  Russia could care less about it because they can support themselves on their own oil - but need additional refineries.  We are not destabilizing supplies - OPEC is purposely doing that already.

I stick by my opening remark.

Let's try it this way:  If China moves to take control of an oil producing nation that supplies some US oil needs, what do you think our response would be?  If there are wars being waged in and around the countries that produce the oil, how can that fail to have a massive impact on not only the ability to produce oil in that region both during and long after the war as well as the ability to transport it out of the country while the war is being waged?  

OPEC just messes with supply and prices in order to create the highest profits for themselves, aided by this by market speculators from this country and others who fuel the conditions for prices to rise.  They do exactly what any good capitalist is supposed to do, "maximize profits," just like the American corporations turning the oil into gasoline and selling it on our streets do.  A war will disrupt actual supply and prices, as well as demand far more than economic forces and institutional greed do.

Republican logic:  War raises oil prices.  To lower price, wage more war.

But then again, it's the post 9/11 world where war=peace, tax cuts=more revenue, and abstinence only=fewer pregnancies.

 WAR  We Are Republicans   W.A.R.

LIMBAUGH: "...this is supposedly why we elected Democrats to the House of Representatives two years ago. They were going to fix this."

They love to spin the election results of 2006, now more than ever.

There were 3 main reasons why not a single incumbent Congressional Democrat lost their Congressional seat in 2006 (that was an Historic first for that to happen), and why Republicans failed to capture even one open Congressional seat nation-wide in 2006 (another Historic first!):

1. BUSH

2. IRAQ

3. Congressional Ethics, specifically the many scandals (delay, ney, "duke" cunningham, abrahmoff, foley, hastert, etc.) of the Congressional Republican majority.

 

Now more than ever, they're trying to spin those election results, and distract you from those truths. because it's still all about BUSH, and it's still all about IRAQ... but whatever happened to the many Congressional scandals, and the question of Congressional Ethics?

It seems to have gone away, doesn't it... ever since Democrats took both the Senate and the House in 2006, Congressional Ethics and scandal seem to have been "fixed"...

 

LIMBAUGH: "...this is supposedly why we elected Democrats to the House of Representatives two years ago. They were going to fix this."

As far as Congressional Ethics was concerned, we did fix it.

IRAQ and BUSH will both be "fixed" too, in about 6 months time... in the election (Historic!) of 2008.

 

 

Maybe Rush has confused the price of gas with the price of Oxycontin...one fuels his car, the other his mouth.

Actually, it must be a compliment.  Rush must have thought that the Dems, in little over a year, could repair what the Republican majority messed up in the previous 4 years (if not longer).

 -- Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price-gouging; rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies; and increasing production of alternative fuels -- Pelosi Apr06

When democrats took control of congress in the 206 midterms they inherited gasoline at the adjusted price of $2.36 a gallon...in Apr08 the price was $3.46.

Atta way Nancy...I think I've seen enough of your common sense...but I'm heartened by the do-nothing actions of your regime. 

Do you know what a "veto" is?  Do you know what a "veto-proof majority" is?  You really should look those up before you post anymore.  You're looking foolish.

He's not worried, the republicans have a plan to steal the next election too. It's called disenfranchise legal american voters in the name of party over country. And they wonder why it takes 40 years for them to come to power again once they lose it...

 -- Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship. --

Having trouble proving your citizenship? Must be democrats. But regardless of who they are...anyone who isn't smart enough to be able to provide proof of his citizenship...doesn't need to vote...and don't even start with the lame crap that it is a financial hardship. 

No kidding.  This is ridiculous. 

No, what is ridiculous is the fact that both of you think that people not being able to exercise their rights to vote isn't a problem.  Shame on both of you for crapping on others' rights, just because you may not like the candidate for whom they'll more than likely vote.

I disagree with you both on many a topic, but I will never do anything to keep you from exercising your rights.  You right-wingers really need to get over yourselves.

Yeah, like the Indiana nuns living in the convent who were turned away?  Until the government starts to provide free government-issued identification, this is a poll tax.

You're completely wrong about the nuns.

They were not disallowed the ability to vote. They were offered the option of casting a provisional ballot...which would be counted when they provided proof...and they declined. 

Do you know why they declined, Wesley?

"They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”

Since you think its a good law, please provide examples of voter fraud, especially in Indiana, that the law was meant to erase.

Looks like the poor little nuns should have planned a little better.

I don't have to...want to...or need to prove voter fraud in Indiana to support the id law...I just happen to think it's a damn fine idea. 

Because it's aimed at likely democratic voters. Republicans can't win on the issues so they cheat.

And just who would those democrat voters be...the ones too stupid to provide proof of id...or too poor to get a free id?

What a real american you are. Deny hundreds of thousands of legal americans the right to vote because you fear someone who really doesn't have the right to vote might vote. And yet your kind calls democrats the elitists?

I'm not for denying anyone the right to vote...unless you're too stupid to get a free id to show that little old lady gestapo goon at the polling booth.

Well, if stupidity is a reason to deny the right to vote, you will have to count out half of the republican party. You have to be a real idiot to want to give up constitutionally granted freedoms to ensure you feel safe.

It's not an undue burden to require a personal I.D. to vote.  It's just not.

Sure it is. It just is.

snoops, you are really stupid, i must say.  we used to show i.d. to vote and it wasn't a hassle. 

WIll the State of Indiana be driving to every nursing home and homeless shelter in the state to provide the opportunity for those residents to obtain identification needed to vote?

Of course not...except for the believers in a nanny state.

Get with the program berg...you have to learn to do a few things for yourself. The government does not pick you up and deliver you to the polling places.

If you're able to get yourself to the voting booth...you're certainly capable of making one more trip to the BMV for your ID...god o mighty boy.

Wesley,

I thought we were keeping the personal things out.  Those who are not mobile, i.e. those in a nursing home will have a hard time with this law.  Since the Constitution places no restrictions on the rights of citizens to vote, it will be interesting to see how Indiana responds to this.  Its not wanting a nanny state to ensure that each state government upholds the Constitutionally-protected right to vote.

 

Wow, being called stupid is such a compelling argument. Why, you totally proved me wrong with that stunning display of intellectual horsepower. I bow to your superior intellect. </sarcasm>

 -- Yeah, like the Indiana nuns...Until the government starts to provide free government-issued identification, this is a poll tax. -- friedbergboy

Keerist, can you leave the talking points for just one minute. There is no poll tax in Indiana...they will provide your id free. 

I'd sure like to see that proof.

From the Indiana Sec. of State website:

 -- Public Law 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free. --

I'll count on you to pick up the nuns and drive them to their local BMV for their free ID and stop this crazy disenfranchisement. 

Since the Constitution freely gives all citizens the right to vote, shouldn't the state of Indiana be mandated to make sure that each of its citizens has the form of identification needed?  Offering cards is a great first step, but unless the state is proactively giving these cards to people, it is a burden, albeit a slight one, to voting.  I hope that the state is providing an outreach to those who have expired licenses and identification and is proactive even at the polling places.  Otherwise, I could not disagree more with the Court's decision.

Show us evidence of voter fraud in Indiana as well.

Well heck Wes, why don't you just ask your fuhrer to put a barcode on everyone's forehead? Y'all are so damn hard up for creating a police state, just put it out there and let's get it over with!

You don't have to vote...if you're afraid of showing who you are.

And while you're at it...you can boycott all those other activities that require proof of identity. 

I can count on my one finger the number of "activities" I'm required to present an ID for. You must live in a virtual police state if you are required to prove your identity all the time.

Depending on your personal appearance

1) To buy Tobacco Products

2) To buy Alcholic Beverages

In General

3) To fly

4) To re enter the US from Mexico or Canada

5) To rent a car

6) If you are stopped by the Police

And in some places

7) To rent a Motel room

8 To cash a check over certain amounts

8) To verify your credit card in certain instances

I would like to see your hand, Snoopy, I've had a couple of six fingered cats in the past, but never an eight fingered puppy. Have a great evening!

"Depending on your personal appearance"

Now you're catching on. I should only have to prove I can legally vote once. Got that? If our government is too stupid to not want to invest in the proper infrastructure to ensure we are that right, than all I can say is we have a bunch of republicans in charge.

Then, how come every year when I renew my vehicle license in our state, I have to verify my Driver's License number? (A state thoroughly controlled by D's, by the way).  I used to get "carded" at Night Clubs until I was well into my 30's, even though I didn't (and still don't) drink.  And I have to show my ID everytime I fly, even though I have done it once. And, I believe, in most States it would be hard to check IDs if the voter applied for an Absentee Ballot.  The voter ID laws may be a pesky law to some, but I don't necessarily see it that way.

I think you are a little confused at the difference between priveledges and rights.  You have a constitutionally protected right to vote.  The other things you describe are mostly private activities and priveledges without any such protections.   Let's not compare apples and oranges here.

It is true that you can vote absentee ballot in most of these "voter ID" states without an ID.  It kind of makes me wonder what a homeless person can do to vote.  Remember all rights are equal here.

Now, Snoopy didn't differentiate between rights and priviledges in his opening, just noted that only one hand was needed to count the places ID is required. I primarily was pointing out that hand was a little bigger than thought.  I had to provide an address when I registered to vote, so that I could be assigned the correct precinct to vote in.  How do we handle that with a homeless person? I will have to say that I don't know. Perhaps they could list a shelter or?  Also, at least in our state we have to be a resident of an area at least 30 days prior to an election, as the registration rolls close at that time.  I would think that election day registration would be a nightmare.  The county I live in (and a neighboring state) use mail in voting only.  How does that affect the homeless?  I would think that although voting may be a right, we as citizens carry certain responsibilities in making sure we can exercise that right, including being able to prove who we are.

"How do we handle that with a homeless person? I will have to say that I don't know." --oscar

The law needs to provide for that.  There needs to be a way that the least common denominator is provided for or the law will facilitate disfranchisement of people otherwise entitled to their Constitutional right to vote.

i have a constitutional right to have a handgun, but to get one i have to present i.d. and go through a background check.  so your argument based on rights and privileges makes no sense.

Great point. We have to show ID to buy a gun even though it's a Constitutional right. But yet the libs don't want to have the same policy regarding voting. If everybody had to show an ID then dead people wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Bad point. Voting isn't dangerous. Well, except to right wingers, who apparently can't win unless they disenfranchise and suppress the right to vote. But hey, let's just play devil's advocate here - republicans think people need to prove who they are to vote, but they don't think we need a paper trail to ensure that every vote cast counts? You are putting higher value on a machine than on a human being. How absurd.

Read the wording of the Constitution.  The 2nd ammendment provides for some regulation of the right to own arms.  It is not a right to the same degree as voting.

Secondly, the wording also does not refer to "guns", but "arms".  Do you think you have an unlimited right to own any "arms" you want?  Can you own missiles? Nuclear arms?  Biological arms?

You are simply comparing apples to oranges.

Then, how come every year when I renew my vehicle license in our state, I have to verify my Driver's License number?

Because in most (if not all) states, you cannot get or renew a ehicle registration without having a valid driver's license.  They need your driver's license number to make sure you're not on the revoked list.

Besides (as someone else mentioned above), driving is not a right - it's a priviledge.  Voting, OTOH, is a right of citizenship.

You must have some sucky laws there, I get a card in the mail, I mail back a check, and then I get a sticker to put on my license plate. The only "verifying" done is me putting a check mark in a box next to the statement "I verify that my address is correct".

The problem is the difference between proving identity through showing some form of state or federally issued photo ID, which I really don't have a problem with voters having to do, and being forced to go beyond that level of proof and somehow producing proof of citizenship in addition to that ID.  And worse yet, being asked to on a completely subjective basis by volunteer poll workers who have no qualifications to make that sort of a judgement call. 

Does Wesley carry around "Proof of Citizenship" at all times?  Well, unless Wesley has an accent or certain ethnic physical traits, it won't matter because the poll workers aren't going to be hassling him for it.  Wesley looks and sounds "American" and so his driver's license or state ID are going to be fine.

This law isn't being made to solve a problem, it's being made to discourage entire blocks of people to not vote because they are going to be guaranteed a government sanctioned intimidation when they try to. 

You're 100% correct.  There isn't a problem to fix.  These laws are designed solely to keep people who could otherwise vote from doing so.  I've been following the primaries quite closely - and so far, I've heard nothing about voter fraud in Indiana.

So why not let the nuns vote?  I'm going out on a limb here, but it's a pretty good chance that a 95 year old nun is who she says she is.

Action my boy, action. That's what it takes. Just have your democrats reach across that aisle...extend that hand of bipartisanship...after all that's what Obama has pledged.

It might work better than whining...but that's just a thought. 

How about you tell your Republican buddies to stop filibustering every bill that comes across the Senate floor? 

You're the one with the candidates running on the pledge of change. Looks like we're going to have to lean on Obama for that leadership...you obviously don't have any of those skills...with your lament about those mean ole republicans blocking your grand plans.

Every candidate from the party not in power at the time runs on a platform of "change," Wesley.  As for making things personal, your party has been the ones obstructing Congressional Business who whined about filibusters in the last term when they were rarely used in comparison.  Doesn't that indicate that Dems were more open to compromise?  I think it does. 

Do you think that Bush and the Republican Congress's policies only affected the four years they were in power or did some policies have longer lasting effect? 

I didn't expect you to get it.

Do you not agree that the Republicans have filibustered more in one year than any minority party in history?

Do you think that policies and results only last four years?

No, he doesn't. He just said if the democrats wanted to enact change, they need to extend their hands across the aisle to do the republicans bidding. Bipartisanship is dropping everything democratic to enable republican policies in his twisted mind.

Wes,

What do you suggest we do to lower energy prices?  I suggest we look at long-range solutions such as alternative fuels and require our automakers to raise their fuel-efficiency standards.  What do you think?  See, I am reaching out to you ;).

You're right about your long range plan...it will be a long time before alternative fuels have enough impact to lower the price of oil.

I support the development of alternative fuels...hell I support the development of any energy source.

I mostly support as the best way to lower or stabilize oil prices is to explore and drill within our own boundaries.

See how easy it is when you play nice. I'll give you more support for alternative energy sources if you'll give me more support for producing more of our own oil. 

Deal? 

Talk to your republican buddies. It isn't the Democrats who are keeping the companies from drilling off of the florida coast.

And what with ANWR and ND?

Not familiar with ND, but the problem with ANWAR is the quality of the oil. It won't be processed and used in the US, but sold overseas to countries like Japan and China. If it were truly for the benefit of reducing American dependance you'd have a point.

Columbus is confused again.  The oil business in ND (North Dakota) is growing rapidly.  If Democrats are trying to block drilling there, they haven't been doing a good job of it.  Byron Dorgan is a Democrat and he has been trying to attract Oil companies to the state.

As of a few years ago, oil companies didn't even want to drill in ANWR.  I don't know if the situation has changed since then or not.  Besides, it isn't like ANWR is nearly enough supply to change the price of gas either.

The problem with AWR is that it is one of the last pristine tundra coastal areas in our country and in the world.  Millions of migratory birds utilize the refuge.  Polar bears are increasingly dependent on the coastal plain because global warming has greatly reduced their ability to make shelters on sea ice.  Caribou use the refuge because they have been pushed there from other drilling operations on the north shore.  

The tundra is an extremely fragile ecosystem that takes centuries to recover from damage.  There are tire tracks in the tundra from exploratory vehicles that traveled through it 50 years ago.  

Not to mention that we have treaties with Canada to preserve ANWR along with a sister refuge on their side of the border. 

I could go on and on, and I didn't even get into the issue of how little oil is there.   

"The problem with AWR is that it is one of the last pristine tundra coastal areas in our country and in the world.  Millions of migratory birds utilize the refuge.  Polar bears are increasingly dependent on the coastal plain because global warming has greatly reduced their ability to make shelters on sea ice.  Caribou use the refuge because they have been pushed there from other drilling operations on the north shore"

In other words animals in ANWR are more important than human beings who need energy prices to go down. Thanks for displaying that bit of liberal logic.

If by liberal logic, you mean decent, respectful, and moral, you are correct.  I'm not sure if you knew this, but humans aren't the only things on ths planet, justas US interestes aren't the only interests in human relations.  Selfishness and superiority are not good atributes.  We have the ability to make moral decisions regarding how we treat the world around us. 

Also, if by liberal logic you mean sensical and forward thinking, you are also correct.  The evidence is screaming at us that the destruction we cause to ecosystems have dramatic effects on our lives and livelihood.  Some choose to ignore that evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.  Once we destroy something, it will never return and when the consequences are so stark that we can no longer ignore them, we will have no way to repair the damage.  It's better to think of those things in advance before we destroy things for miniscule economic gains that can easily be avoided through alternative strategies.  That's liberal logic in action. 

Yes, killing a couple of polar bears in Alaska sure is going to come back to haunt us. The remaining polar bears up in Alaska may decide to invade the other 49 states and take over the country. They may very well throw us out of power for being so cruel. Our national security interests may very well be in jeopardy if we tick off the polar bears.

You, of course, entirely skipped the whole part about the oil that is under ANWR not really being any good. It can't be readily refined, and even if it could, it would still be years (many) on down the road before it would have an impact on the US, and because of the type of oil that is there, it won't help us any. I mean, you guys must think that "oil is oil", but it's not.

You also fail to see the impact of killing a few polar bears. It's not the killing of the bears that is the problem, it is the reason behind the killing of the bears. It's called destroying an eco system, as in, this is how our planet lives and breathes. Because you can't see it from where you're sitting, and because most of us have never been there, doesn't mean that it's not important for the long term sustainability of our entire planet. Another good example, Amazon rain forests.

Your claim about the oil not being any good simply isn't true. We don't know whether it's good or the amount because we've never actually drilled there before. I don't know for sure about ANWR, but if we drilled throughout the entire state of Alaska we would have a larger oil supply than Saudi Arabia. We would have enough oil to last 60 years. We have more than enough oil if the environmentalists would simply let us drill. With the technology we have today it's very unlikely that there would be any spills at all drilling in ANWR. Your claim that drilling in ANWR would harm ecosystems up there is completely baseless.

Talk about baseless claims! Here, read this report. You may get 3% to 5% out of ANWR, starting in 2013 (assuming permission were granted today). At present levels of consumption, ANWR would be drained of economically recoverable oil within 12 years. And price impact would most likely be negligible. If OPEC operates as expected, they will reduce production by the same amount that the US increases production.

You can read all about it here.

I was talking about Alaska in general and not just ANWR. ANWR isn't the only place where we can't drill in Alaska. My point was that if we could drill throughout the entire state of Alaska we would have enough oil to last for 60 years. We're the only country in the world whose politicians prohibit drilling in certain parts of the country.

look down one post. Your point was completely debunked.

Nobody knows precisely how much oil is in Alaska.  All figures are speculative.

United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 gigabarrels as of 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration, a 46% decline from the 39 gigabarrels it had in 1970 when the huge Alaska North Slope ('ANS') reserves were booked. With production of around 5 million barrels per day (790,000 m³/d) as of 2006, this represents about an 11 year supply of oil at current rates. With consumption at 21 million barrels per day (3,300,000 m³/d) (7.7 gigabarrels per year) (2007), US reserves alone could satisfy US demand for only three years.[citation needed]

No oil fields of similar size to the ANS reserves have been found in the US since 1970. With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949,[43] there are very few unexplored areas left where another supergiant oil field is likely to be found.[citation needed] US oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries.

Hmmm, only 3 years worth of oil... You must be confused with oil shale.

The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.