Well then, must be time for a Bush victory tour!

Straight from WA DC to Crawford, TX on Jan 21, 2009 in a high mileage U-Haul.

Good post, oh great Beagle.

;)

Hey Oscar, I may not have been quite clear last night, but the link to federal and state incentives covers more than just solar. You can find things in there about higher rated insulation, water heaters, heck, even windows. It's worth your time to take a look!

When we built our home, we used what the local utility called "Super Good Cents" standards, 6" walls, 12" attic insulation, insulated doors, triple glazed windows, etc. With the ground source heat pump, we've been very pleased with our heating/cooling bills. Despite some right wing views (and I tend to be more on the conservative side) about light bulbs, etc, we have converted about 1/2 our lights to CF, mainly so I don't have to climb the ladder to change them so often. If you ever want to get out of hot, humid Texas, I can show you a great place to settle, four seasons, some cold weather, some hot weather, but on the whole a fairly reasonable place as far as utility bills.

oscar, i must ask.  what are "right wing views about light bulbs"?   i try not to have knee jerk views on anything, but the light bulb issue is common sense to me.  i've been using them for years.  they pay for themselves quickly, and use much less energy.  i had an argument with science 101 a few days ago about the difference in bulbs and he was dismissive of the cf bulbs.  to me it's a a win/win.  i can't understand where politics comes into this.  it's like something i said about limbaugh the other day.  he's mocked fuel efficiency standards for years.  where is the ideology in this? 

I don't know whether it's a "right wing view" or not. People like Science, etc (and some of the talk radio group) seem to be dismissive of a lot of the things that make common sense.  To me, the only problem is the mandating of CF bulbs (and other things) when it should be an individual choice based on personal research, preferences, etc. I don't like the CF light in certain areas in and around the house, so I want to retain the choice of only using them where I wish and not where the government mandates. Until the industry came out with those that look more like regular lightbulbs and not the spiral tubes showing, my wife wouldn't have one of them in the house (and she at least talks a "greener" lifestyle than I do).

you can buy the cf bulbs that give off "soft light".  i do a lot of reading and have no problem.  i understand not wanting things to be mandated, but we're worked ourselves into a corner with our energy waste.  we're killing our economy, adding to global warming, and sending money to foreign regimes that are not friendly to us.  i think there was too much of a tendency to dismiss nuclear by some on the left [although it costs a whole lot to build a plant], but mainly it's the right that for thirty years has tried to cast wasting energy as some american birthright.

Oscar, try this on for size. The conservative movement mandated that stem cell research be done only in certain ways, the researchers were not abel to choose their methods. The free market fixed that by forcing research into alternative methods that did coform to goverment mandates. So you should trust your goverment when it mandates as that forces the free market to inovate.

As I understand the researchers have to follow Government guidelines to receive government monies.  They would pretty much be free to go out and get private capital and do the research as they see fit.  Apparently the venture capitalists  do not want to buy into this.  Would that be because many of them got bitten bad during the dot con bubble?

Private industries and other countries have made significant progress in stem cell research.

Typically this is science that is funded in large part by our government. That's one of the reasons our nation is so great and has done so well, that our government gives industries seed money that later helps industries grow and gives most of our nation a rising tide that lifts all boats.

With SCR, they stopped that pattern for moral issues! That's wrong.

It's an issue of non-cooperation. That's why it's a partisan issue. They don't cooperate.

They try to claim to be willing to compromise, but they aren't. That's why they wanted a permanent Republican majority. That's why they're in the House of Representatives right now, stomping their feet because they aren't getting their way. Never mind that at times our representatives need to act like intelligent people and do not what the majority of Americans think will be beneficial, and this is one of those times. A reasonable Congressman would know that extra drilling isn't going to add to our supply today and even when it adds to the supply years from now it's not going to have a significant impact on gas prices. They're willing to lie to their constituents though because they won't cooperate.

I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that I am a conservative. For the record, our home has a geo-thermal heat pump for HVAC, my husband  converted all three of our vehicles to run on propane (so that's only about 2.75 a gallon), we use mostly CF bulbs except where the fixtures were already flourescent to begin with or the mercury vapor out side lights. We were going to put in a small wind generator (we live right on the CA coast so the prevailing breeze is pretty constant year round) to cover running the pool and exterior lighting, however, our VERY liberal tree hugging, "march against anything" neighbors objected so we haven't done that yet...

Now please ask Mr "Gore-bal" warming to cut his electrical usage at his mansion, if logic can get you past your hatred of conservatives and see his hypocrisy for what it is? LOL.... (doubt that's gonna happen!)

 

The hypocrite would be you.

He's under no obligation to live in a smaller home/office than what he feels he needs. The fact that he balances all the energy he uses with carbon credits, and that he uses green energy, is good.

Why do you have a pool? That's not something you need, ya know! You're the hypocrite because he's being a better caretaker of our world than you are, and you're berating him for the nice home he lives in while you have a pool.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a conference on sustainability at the local Liberal Arts College. Some of the items presented at that meeting were very interesting in regards to renewables, etc.  During the open mic session, one person stood up and stated that 2 people don't need any more than a 3 room house (outhouse out back, I guess.) Another said that we should locally outlaw bottled water, gas powered lawn mowers & weed whackers, leaf blowers, etc. These sounded great to the audience, based on the applause.  I found out later the first speaker lives with his significant other in a 4000 sq ft house and the second drives 600+ miles most weekends (with only one other passenger) in a Chevy Suburban. And I'm still supposed to believe that I need to downsize my living quarters and shoehorn myself into a subcompact for long distance driving, that I'm supposed to cut my energy use by 30-40% (even if I buy green) and those "preaching" to me don't have to also.  If we need to "sacrifice", we need to do it together (100%, including the Gores and these two local examples) or it won't get done.

were you doing some detective work?  how did you find out so much about 2 random people at an open mic? 

It was actually fairly easy work.  1) My wife works at the College and knows most of the faculty by name, etc.  2) There weren't a lot of people at the event and all wore nametags.  It was just a matter of asking my wife if she knew these people and anything about them.  If detective work were so simple, perhaps I should have been a private investigator ala Rockford.

sounds a little too convenient.

Welll, I did have to duck sniper fire.

missdee, did you come up with that quote yet where obama said inflating our tires would eliminate our need for "foreign oil"?  probably not, since it's complete nonsense.

 VERY liberal tree hugging, "march against anything" neighbors objected...

I know you usually post and run, dee, but I'd like to know how you know your neighbors are liberal tree-huggers.  Did you ask them?  What exactly did they do that stopped your progress? 

Frankly, I find the whole post hard to believe.

I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that I am a conservative.

I dont' think anyone on here is going to challenge that you are an uninformed, hypocritical wingnut, either.

Straight from WA DC to Crawford, TX on Jan 21, 2009 in a high mileage U-Haul.

I'd rather see him shipped over to The Hague to face trial for war crimes.

That pretty much sums it up.

Thanks for the link , Snoop. I haven't been making it over to the Onion enough lately.

The most disturbing thing about the video is that The Onion's phony reporters have surpassed most of our MSM chuckleheads as convincing journalists. The tip-off was that they were being critical of Bush.

JAN. 20 2009 to ex PRESIDENT BUSH, Good riddence to bad rubbish.

I'll be wishing the same for Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi.  And if the congressional approval ratings are any indication, then much like Bush, those two will be gone as well.

I think more people bought Nancy's book than would vote her in office again anyway.

Nah, you clearly misunderstand the mathematical concept of averages. Democrats are above average, republicans are below average, thus pulling the bar lower than it should be.

So 0% for the Rs and about a 12% for the total would make the D rating (at best) about 25%. Nothing great to write home about, I would think.  We need some total new thinking in WA DC.  I'm term limiting all federal incumbents on the ballot in my district this fall.

If the Republicans hadn't been obstructionist, then the Dems would have a lot better approval rating. If Bush and his administration hadn't given Washington a much worse name than what they already have, Congress would have a much better approval rating. If politically active Dems didn't want the Dems in Congress to be even more anti-Bush than what they've been, damn the costs, then they'd have a better approval rating too. If Republicans would stop being so partisan, and would evaluate the Congress on what they've done instead of who they are, their approval would be higher.

So, 3 of the 4 reasons for a low approval rating are directly a result of the Bush Administration and the likes of Karl Rove, and other one is a result of strong-willed Democrats thinking that the Dems haven't done enough to punish the criminal Republicans.

And you want to blame the Dems for the low approval ratings Congress gets?

Only half the blame.

I provide evidence that 3 out of 4 reasons that Congress has a low approval rating is 100% due to the Republicans acting poorly and the other part is that Dems are upset that Dems aren't reaming the Republicans a new hole, and you can come to the conclusion that the Democrats deserve 1/2 of the blame? What a creep!

You admit that Ds are mad at the Ds in Congress for their "inaction" and yet all the blame for low approval ratings is because of the Rs. You may not be a "creep" but.............

Some Democratic voters are mad at Congress because they haven't punished the screw-ups on the right as much as they think they should have.

3 out of the four reasons that Congress gets a bad rap are entirely due to the Republicans, and the other reason is due to the Republicans being screw-ups and the Dems aren't hare enough on them.

I didn't say the Dems deserve no blame. You're the one who stated that they deserve half the blame.

You'd think you'd figure stuff like this out on your own one of these days.

The point was, you said that all incumbents deserve to go. But if what I said is true, then not all need to go - just the Republicans that are screw-ups. If they go, then all 4 reasons will be gone. The Dems aren't as bad, or as much to blame, as the Republicans are.

While extremely disappointed with Pelosi's non-performance, you actually expect a Dem Congress without a super-majority to override Pres "Numbnuts" and undo 6 years of destruction in just 2 years?  Sounds like typical right-wing math to me.

Great post.

Actually, the cons would like everyone of us to blame all our current problems (energy crisis, the war, economic, health, car breakdowns, disobedient kids, not-winning-the-lottery, math deficiencies, hair balls, you name it) on the two-year slim-majority of democrats in the congress. But this kind of logic only works on dedicated republicans.

 

This obsession with Nancy Pelosi... Such brilliant strategy to bring her up in every thread. We were all charmed by the inestimable Tom Delay, when he was the house majority leader. No doubt his books are very popular.

Yeah, the "base" has ginned up all 40 supporters to buy that sh!t-in-a-blanket book in bulk. Two months before we get "buy Ann Coulter and get this one for free!".

I noticed it's obsession with the speaker too.

I guess it's better than having to listen to another screed about "yeah, but the Clintons, the Clintons, for Christ's sake!"

I'm betting that the Pelosi detestation won't have the same staying power.

Your a fool.  The dems are projected to pick up 5 or more seats in both houses, minimum.  Congress' low approval rating are primarily aimed at obstructionist Republicans.

And again, national opinion polls about Congress mean, absolutely nothing.

It is more dependent on what their polling numbers are in their home states / districts. Such as, Pelosi's approval ratings were well above 50% in her home district.

Exactly.  It's a well-known political truism that voters hate congress, but tend to support their own congressman/woman.

Alas, that is true.  It is so easy to point fingers at the other 532 and praise our two Senators and our Representative (unless they happen to be of the "other" political party, in which case they are as bad as the others.

That's not true either.

Voters overall don't hate their own representatives, despite their party affiliation.

Of course, Republicans are much more party loyal and much more dismissive of Democratic representatives regardless of their capabiities and qualities. It's a sad but undeniable fact that Republicans have a much harder time appreciating another party's good Congressman or Senator that Democrats do.

I think more people bought Nancy's book than would vote her in office again anyway.

At least she's written a book. There's no evidence that you have ever even colored one.

BWAHAHAH......Choke!

Fortunatly I was not facing the monitor directly.

bush only had those high ratings because of 9-11, something i could never understand.  it was like you couldn't say anything bad about him for a year and a half.  that was why the white house wanted that authorization of force vote in the fall of 2002.  they were going to portray everyone voting against it as not wanting to defend the country.  bush was big daddy, defending us from the terrorists, and the fact is that he was the same incompetent idiot he was before.  and then as time has gone by, and the information has come out, it's clear that it was bush who set the tone that led to the attack.  he deemphasized counterterrorism and ignored the warnings that something big was coming.

I find it hard to believe bush's ratings were ever high.  So Bush stood on a pile of rubble with a megaphone,and the press drooled all over themselves, as if this was some wonderful moment.  Everything has to be made for television no matter how different behind the scenes reality.

   The paragraph in the Wa. Times had so many distortions in it about this dunce, including the opening bit about "inheriting a recession."

Remember, there's a large amount of people who think that Giuliani is some sort of expert on terrorism simply because he happened to be mayor on 9/11.  Logic does not apply to the fallout of that event.

one of the things that came out in the trial of bin laden's driver is that he said bin laden told him that the pennsylvania plane was intended for the capitol building.  that is in line with what the 9-11 commission speculated on.  they said those passengers may have spared the white house or capitol.  we all know the story of mr. commander in chief sitting there reading a book with that befuddled grin on his face, while the country was being attacked.  but the commission's report went on to detail the lack of response to the attack more than an hour later.  they estimated flight 93 would have reached washington between 1013 and 1023 am. As they noted on page 45:  "there was only one set of fighters circling washington during that time frame, the langley f-16s."  it was also noted that those pilots were "never briefed" on the reason they were scrambled.  in fact the lead pilot said he reverted to the "russian threat".  he thought they had snuck a "cruise missile" into the pentagon by sea.  the pilots were told at 1010 that there was "negative clearance to shoot".  it was not until 1031 that shootdown authority was communicated.  all further evidence that bush's indecision on that day, from when he knew the first tower was struck at 846, was a total failure of leadership on his part. 

DEMINTX, Great post. I agree 100%

You know, if the Moonie Times wants to keep making apologies for Shrub,, you guys shouldn't do anything to discourage them. Anything that helps associate the conservative "movement" and the Republican Party with that pathetic loser is all to the better.

Maybe the record is for unemployment since Clinton was president.

This is a president who inherited a recession, was rocked by corporate scandal, led in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our nation and went to war. He also grew the economy, reduced unemployment to still record-levels, increased literacy rates, grew minority homeownership and small businesses, kept terrorists at bay, toppled a sadistic regime and reformed Medicare.

 

This needs fixing:

This is a president who presided over a recession, enabled corporate scandal, panicked and froze in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on our nation and abandoned a necessary war in order to start a war of choice. He also failed to grow the economy back to the levels it was at before 9/11 and the recession, had minimal impact on unemployment levels, increased literacy rates by finally learning to read himself, temporarily grew minority homeownership through unwise and later catastrophic deragulation of the mortgage industry, kept small time terrorists with no chance of success at bay, toppled a sadistic regime and replaced it with violence and chaos and poisoned Medicare.

 All hail the mighty dunce!

Hey now. While that whole crazy "deregulation of the housing market" has had disastrous results and put the country in a real bind, what's important is that it looked good for awhile. And creating the illusion of safety is one of the things neo-cons do. It's like with Saddam Hussein -- sure it's been proven that he wasn't ready to destroy the world, but dang, we're all much safer because a dictator is gone!

 I can't believe the Times was dumb enough to actually include something that would directly lead a wise reader to question deregulation.

I think they intended for the reader's eyes just to glaze over and skip that list of worthless achievements and not question it.  It worked on me first time through but something made me have to look again and at that point the bile was engaged in full.

''ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY DUNCE''. I love that. I believe that this administration will go down as one of the worst in our history. It will rank right there with the NIXON and CARTER administrations.  In fact,I'd say that this aministration  has the combination of the arrogance of NIXON's people and the incompetence of CARTER'S people.

Approval rating have nothing to do with whether or not Bush is "the bad guy."  Lying us in to a war, however, does.

So, if the paper has to lie to back up a claim that "Bush isn't the bad guy," then I guess maybe he actually is the bad guy?