Texsox

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) I agree with you here, but I keep the ideas of being a champion for the enviornment and a champion for global warming seperate. We NEED to treat the enviornment better, that's obvious fact, but the idea that humans are causing a path of disasterous warming could, to say the least, be strongly debated. I agree, I think it ten years we will see the global warming "industry" as producing a net negative impact on the environment. It is causing people to stop thinking about the small things we can do to help. Starting as far back as I can remember (late 60s) there wasn't an over night change, it was a slow gradual change for the better. Each person doing their part to reduce, reuse, and recycle. By painting environmentalists as extremists and crazies we are hurting ourselves. There are many examples of my brand of environmental stewardship. As I wrote yesterday, we can't get people to live in a yurt, but if everyone will take small steps within their current lifestyles, we can have a huge impact. I was just reading that if every American used a third less ice in our drinks we could shift from being an energy importer and become a net exporter. I find it a little unbelievable, and use too much ice myself to offer that suggestion.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) Thanks for saying what many of us were thinking. Living on the border, I thought I was just being super-sensitive to this stuff. And as I was scanning and not seeing it mentioned I figured I was imagining it.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Our current system 'caused' the death of this girl... so how exactly are we helping them? I know, let's just give them MORE money! That'll help them, right? Nice try at twisting my answer. You asked why we help and I gave an answer to "why we help". No I don't think more money would have helped. Knowledge of existing systems would have helped. Why do you think we help?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) Tex you don't need (or want) our answers, thoughts, or ideas. You have your mind made up and filled with stereotypes. You have had no desire to debate anything, instead you have pulled out the worse of every commment and used it in the worst possible light. I know you are trying to bait someone into continuing the stuff that was going on before, but it just isn't worth it. I personally have no desire to have anything I say taken and blown into the worst thing possible, all of the while sitting back and nitpicking it to death. There is no "discussion" possible without respect for an opinion different than your own. I tried explaining my opinion 10 different ways to get around the insane interpretations you were making it of, but it just got worse and worse the longer I tried to explain anything to you. To be honest, I don't know that I have ever seen the blood in the water mentality that I saw surrounding this, except for a very few other times on here. It just isn't worth wasting my time and energy discussing something that will get absolutely no where good, and only serve to make me question things on a personal level instead of an issue level. This house has been burned to the ground, no matter how much gasoline you try to pour on it. try me. Alpha made some great points and if you bothered to read my reply, I agreed with him. Kap suggested liberals get our heads out of Goracle's ass and look. I'm looking and waiting for some conservative to comment on the environment and what the GOP's position is. I am very consistently pro-business. The GOP usually links anti-polluting measures to what is good for business. I can't think of one position I've taken that could be considered anti-business. I imagine I would be much in line with GOP environmental positions, if I actually knew them. So I sit and wonder why the GOP doesn't have a champion for the environment. It could possibly be one more area that I agree with Republicans.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:35 PM) They do, if you take your head out of the Goracle's ass long enough to find it. And no, it's not simply $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Balta. And before the next smart ass comment comes about "they just pollute and pollute and pollute", no, that's just simply not true. There isn't the Goracle (or someone like him) speaking for the GOP, so of course they won't get the same attention. Why do you come in here with that ass comment? I guess it is more of the intelligent, thought provoking comments from conservatives on the environment. I've been asking for 100 posts in that other thread and so far no one has spoken up. So where should I look to find out? And the other question is why conservatives do not speak up about the environment?

Why are these questions impossible for conservatives to answer? So why is there no conservatives talking about the environment? Are conservatives 100% happy with air and water quality? According to conservatives, is this as good as we can get? I am puzzled that after over 50 posts by conservatives, all I've read is Gore is *like* a child molesting priest or someone who beats the crap out of people, oh, and called Goracle Not one says look at this leading conservative and what he is proposing and doing today. I would love to find a conservative figure that makes y'all happy, as long as it leads to a cleaner environment and one less dependent on fossil fuels. Is Gore a hypocrite because he champions a goal, is trying to get there, but not there yet? Isn't that better than not trying at all? Alpha, I agree that any changes must not destroy our manufacturing and business base. But, starting back in the 60s, that's always been a defense of polluters, and we've still managed to make great strides in the past 40 years. So there are multiple reasons to cut back on fossil fuels, that is great, I don't care why people are doing it, as long as steps are being done. I don't compare my usage to someone living in a larger home. With all the time I spend living in tents during the year, I am probably using well less than anyone else in this discussion. I think we need to compare apples to apples. Different people have different situations. As long as we all try to reduce from where we are today, things get better. And of course not 100%, but what are the areas that conservatives are concerned about and what is their solution?

Why do we help people today? Perhaps it is because enough people in this country do not like hearing about 12-year old kids dying because of a toothache. Perhaps enough people in this country would rather give other people money than step over the bodies of starving people? We could stop all these social programs, and perhaps Sally Struthers will come to our neighborhoods instead of some third world country, and ask people to please help this starving person.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) Yep, I can't see at all why the conservatives don't want to post in this thread.... Good to see you are staying in line Tex Well I asked some serious questions regarding what direction the GOP sees in the environment. How happy they are and who are the conservative leaders on the environment. I guess there is some value to conservatives to try and build parallels to Child Molesting Priests and Al Gore

I'm just guessing your post is 100% funnier and entertaining than that show.

Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started. After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him.

The Gore thread has highlighted something for me, why doesn't the GOP have a position regarding the environment? The only thing I've seen is attacking any Dem lead discussions and policy initiatives, but no proposals of their own besides delaying milestones for energy efficiencies and pollution standards. I assume theirs is a "if it hurts business, we can't afford it economically" position that is tough to articulate and more importantly, harder to defend. What concerns me then, is by attacking Dems for environmental stewardship, they are hurting us all by allowing a more polluted environment. Their followers seemingly would prefer to reject any and all Dem initiated environmental proposals and stay in the pockets of big oil. I wonder what Dems can do to "de-politicize" the issue for the greater good. To bring conservatives into the fold so we all can enjoy cleaner air and safer water. If we can't get together over something as basic as air and water, we're really in trouble.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) If this family was spending its $$$ on bottled water... Sorry, two different things, I was just thinking about children and teeth

I wonder if bottled water without flouride is causing more dental problems for kids.

No one really takes this "research" seriously do they? Anyone could be posting, including rabid conservatives upset with the blogs.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) If you are talking about year to year profits, its the Cubs. If you are talking about total profits its the Pirates. There are two different things there though. I understand, purchase price comes into play and a host of other issues. But it seems that profit isn't the biggest motivator for many owners. I think owning their boyhood team, saving a team for their hometown, is probably a bigger motivator. For that reason, I think you are correct, owning the Pirates is probably more interesting to Cuban then the Cubs. The profit issue may also come into play, but if you look at his running of the Mavs, I doubt he would factor in profits for personal gain, but perhaps profit as a means to reinvest and make the Pirates a contender.

I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage. So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues? QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) What the hell ever, Tex. Let it go. The rest of us did when we realized that the Goracle could walk on polluted water. I'm sure every conservative is anti-environmental. It just has to be, because otherwise the Goracle wouldn't have to be an elitist wanker who buys his way to a good conscious. Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) So Tex, are you saying that the liberal audience is more vulgar? Yes. And the religious wing of the conservative movement is easily offended by adult language.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:09 AM) It depends on what you mean by "profitability". If you owned either team over a ten or twenty year period, which franchise would offer the best opportunity for the highest profits? Where I am going with this is a bigger question, why do certain owners buy certain teams? I think you were dead on with Pitt as a great possibility because of the home town angle. I think that is a bigger factor than profits for many owners. Others are fans of a sport and want a franchise in that sport regardless of location.

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) No, I think most of the conservatives quit having this conversation, because no one was listening anyways, which is why your "questions" haven't been getting answered. First asked about 50 posts ago. Leading conservative environmentalists? Which is better, follow Goracles example or his message? Are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Air and water clean enough? How is Goracles message harming the environment? So far it seems the GOP's position on the environment is everything is ok, keep using oil, coil, etc. and discrediting anyone who preaches conservation, alternate fuels, and especially talks about climate changes. I'm wondering what energy gobbling devices that the Goracle installed to boost his energy consumption.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 06:24 AM) Unrealized value is also found in a team that is drawing about 1/3 of capacity, not selling nearly as much advertising as possible, doesn't have as big of a TV contract as possible etc. You gotta get people interested in the product, no matter how good the place is to see it. No one sees games in Pittsburgh anymore. With near perfect management, which team could realize greater profitability, the Cubs or Pirates? I'm thinking merchandising, ticket sales, everything.

Since the usual suspects here could not find a conservative who was also a environmentalist, I went looking. I am alarmed that something as basic as our air, water, and energy production and usage has been hijacked on both sides for political gain. The left: do everything to save the environment, we need to save ourselves from ourselves (and Republicans). Make the problem seem worse to get their attention and action. The right: consumption is fine, burn it, strip mine it, drill it, this is all a ploy by the Dems to get votes. Discredit anyone who disagrees, and use that oil! The truth is somewhere in the middle. Over my lifetime we have made tremendous strides in cleaning our environment. Just look at the Chicago river. From a terribly polluted waterway to something that can be used for recreation. Smokestacks at factories are not billowing poisons into our lungs as badly as before. But Dems are going to have to take a more realistic approach to how bad the situation is and the solutions and Reps are going to have to admit that there are still problems and challenges that confront us. Since when does every issue have to be contested?

Duh. I didn't think it needed empirical data. Of course this is more a commentary about catering to an audience. There are good reasons in some forums, even here, to ban the use of s*** piss f*** c*** cocksucker motherf***er tits

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) so if my future kids cant stop hiccuping, I'm supposed to stick my finger up its butt. Isn't that against the law? "But officer, I was only trying to stop the hiccups!" My avatar can kick your avatars ass!