Neo-Con Watch

[Conan71]

There was some stuff spewing off Hannity and Colmes last night that didn't settle well in my colon.  It goes from impertinent to downright wrong.

Hannity was going off about Hillary's edict that discussion of Bill Clinton's impeachment is off-limits in any future debates and how wrong that is.

I think for as many targets as Hillary has all over her, this would be a good one for the pundits to avoid.  What's the point?  It wasn't her, and the impeachment was over his perjury for lying about Lewinsky- not about her involvement in White Water, Rose Law Firm issues, or questionable commodity trades.  The impeachment is a totally irrelevant issue as far as Ms. Clinton so why should she be questioned or debated on it?

Secondly, Republo-Hottie (Ann Coulter) was on, she was challenging one of Gore's admirers about solar energy being anti-capitalist.  I mean, pancakes?  That creates even more individual industry than the oil conglomerates.  

Just a little too much rancorous far right Kool-Aid last night.

So what are the chances Gore is sitting around and baiting the annihillation of Obama and Clinton, then jumping into the race when those two have managed to turn off primary voters?  Makes you wonder with the Hollywood love-fest the other night with Algore if he didn't have something to do with Geffen's comments.

Think there will be a Gore/Obama ticket?  I can already hear Hillary saying: "Hell no Al, I'm not going to be your VP be-otch!"  He did get a lot of free TV exposure the other night, from what I heard.

[iplaw]

John Gibson was talking about that the other day on the radio.  Gore has half a billion in google stock (insert internet joke here).  He doesn't have to raise any money to run.  He can let Mangina and Obama slit one another's throats and just leisurely step over the corpses to take the nomination.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to run against Hillary.

The chants of Gore/Obama are growing...

[tim huntzinger]

Republo-hottie? Mangina?

You guys are womyn hating misogynists.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

John Gibson was talking about that the other day on the radio.  Gore has half a billion in google stock (insert internet joke here).  He doesn't have to raise any money to run.  He can let Mangina and Obama slit one another's throats and just leisurely step over the corpses to take the nomination.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to run against Hillary.

The chants of Gore/Obama are growing...

I dislike Richardson a whole lot less than Gore, unfortunately Democrats seem to want a rock star instead of someone who could actually be a great leader.  

Has Gore ever told the truth about anything?  He loves to take credit for things he's never done and pays nothing but lip service to the environment in his personal life.  I think that's why he and BJ Clinton were such a great pair- two pathological liars.

[Conan71]

Is Tim still blabbing?

Here ya go:

[Chicken Little]

"Hannity was going off about Hillary's edict that discussion of Bill Clinton's impeachment is off-limits in any future debates and how wrong that is."

He's not wrong.  If Clinton wants to talk about the good times back in the 90s (great economy, etc.), then the ugly stuff is fair game, too.  Nobody'll let her play that game for too long.

As for Ann Coulter, that dude will say anything to get attention.

Richardson is definitely in the mix for me.  So's Obama.  Edwards, too.  I think all of them are the "real deal".  That rock star thing won't last forever, and when you listen to them, you realize they all have good things going for them.   It's a good field.

Hillary's stock is currently plummeting with me.  She won't admit a mistake on the war vote (like John Edwards and others have), and her DLC, "corporate-buddy" platform makes me feel yucky on the inside.  She couldn't look more like Kerry right now if she tried.

/Gore's not running.

[Conan71]

Interesting perspective on the Hillary/impeachment issue CL, since I've always figured you to be a little to the left of my opinions.  IMO, Hannity and Rush tend to waste time on nit-picky stuff on slow news days, it gets so shrill, I think it makes a bad image for conservatives.

Perhaps I've missed something in Hillary's rhetoric of her taking credit for her husband's work.  There again, there are some who still steadfastly believe that Bill was just the figure-head and that Hillary actually was running the country.

Still though, the impeachment was for HIS perjury in lying about the BJ, during an investigation of a business venture in which she was involved as well.  If candidates wish to dig up dead horses, it would be more appropriate to quiz her on White Water.

Maybe all this is coming up because everyone is goading her on to get her to de-laminate and show once and for all nothing has changed and that she is still a shrew.

[rwarn17588]

Whitewater's dead. A special prosecutor looked into it and found nothing.

Perjury is another matter (even though that didn't involve Hillary, either, except making her personal life a living hell for a while).

Unlike other politicos of both stripes, I don't take kindly to people lying under oath. If Bill gets taken to the woodshed for it, Scooter should, too.

As current special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said: "Truth is the engine of the justice system. ... When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth. Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens."

[cannon_fodder]

Rush and Hannity both seem to go way off on irrelevant stuff more often now.  I like to listen to the talking heads, but sometimes its just a bit too much.  Ann Coulter, is always too much.  I'm not sure I have ever heard this woman make a legitimate point in my life.

As per Mangina and Slick Willy, it is applicable only insomuch as she tries to bask in his residual glow.   I think the more problematic areas would be her involvement in the financial scandals that ultimately helped fund her senate seat.  Of course, she is her own problem.  She is suffering from an amazing change of opinion in some areas and giving no opinion in others ("I have a plan that, if elected..." - Richard Nixon on Vietnam).  

Solar power is pretty much a farce.  It is not cost effective without massive government subsidies and could therefor be deemed anti-capitalist.  The same is true for wind power - though it is nearly at break even.  The whole story on alternative energy is getting them to be cost effective at the same or similar level of convenience.   When it does the same thing and saves money - everyone will be on bored.  Until then - build nuclear plants to produce hydrogen.

[tim huntzinger]

'Remember when churches produced caring Christians instead of hateful, money-grubbing jerks like Conan71?'

[rwarn17588]

<cannon fodder wrote:

Solar power is pretty much a farce. It is not cost effective without massive government subsidies and could therefor be deemed anti-capitalist.

<end clip>

Not the upcoming system I'm looking at. Installed, the solar power system I'm very likely going to have is going to generate electricity cheaper than what the utility charges.

There's some amazing alternate-power technology coming 'round the bend.

[iplaw]

[xx(]All I know is that is way to damned early to even be discussing this crap.  It's over a year and a half away.  Pretty soon we'll be able to vote in the frickin' primaries on the same day we vote for president.  Enough is enough.[xx(]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Interesting perspective on the Hillary/impeachment issue CL, since I've always figured you to be a little to the left of my opinions.

She's a corporate-friendly centrist, like Bill, Al 1.0, and John K.  Bill had the charisma that she doesn't.  Bill was the only one of the bunch with enough charisma to sell that Republican-lite stuff to the majority.  With her, I'm afraid it's all packaging and message control for the next two years.  The trouble with me is, I want a debate.

She's not going to be able to talk about the War in Iraq because she's pro-war.  And any discussion about energy, foreign policy, or the growing inequities in this country will be watered down, lest she lose corporate sponsors.

She's beatable, but not because of her husband (he'll help her a ton before this is over).  And not for the misogynistic reasons I've heard so far on this board.  She's beatable because she's ruling class.  She's not  at all in sync with the average American.

/'Course, you could say the same thing of every Republican President back to US Grant, so I guess it's all relative.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

...Installed, the solar power system I'm very likely going to have is going to generate electricity cheaper than what the utility charges...

hippie.  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Rush and Hannity both seem to go way off on irrelevant stuff more often now.  I like to listen to the talking heads, but sometimes its just a bit too much.  Ann Coulter, is always too much.  I'm not sure I have ever heard this woman make a legitimate point in my life.

As per Mangina and Slick Willy, it is applicable only insomuch as she tries to bask in his residual glow.   I think the more problematic areas would be her involvement in the financial scandals that ultimately helped fund her senate seat.  Of course, she is her own problem.  She is suffering from an amazing change of opinion in some areas and giving no opinion in others ("I have a plan that, if elected..." - Richard Nixon on Vietnam).  

Solar power is pretty much a farce.  It is not cost effective without massive government subsidies and could therefor be deemed anti-capitalist.  The same is true for wind power - though it is nearly at break even.  The whole story on alternative energy is getting them to be cost effective at the same or similar level of convenience.   When it does the same thing and saves money - everyone will be on bored.  Until then - build nuclear plants to produce hydrogen.

CF, you and I might be splitting hairs here between "capitalism" and "free enterprise".  Ann Coulter's statement was pure hyperbole.  My point about it not being anti-capitalist has to do with research jobs, manufacturing, and installation/service jobs being created.  I will say Darryl Hannah was dead-donkey wrong on H/C last night about solar being more efficient than any other form of energy.  Present technology is only about 40% efficient at harnessing electrical energy from solar rays:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46765

While ethanol and bio-d are still years away (or an all out war in the Middle East) from being able to stand on their own, the way in which producers are being incubated has allowed new companies to emerge and has emphasized smaller companies with growth potential and has spurred ancillary industrial growth.  At this point, I do believe that the bio-d and ethanol markets are about saturated with producers, based on current consumption levels.  That might explain what I'd heard today about the new ethanol plant in Enid being on hold for now.

My own particular industry has been positively impacted by alternative fuels.  First, the producers of alternative fuels are requiring more equipment.  That creates work for companies like us and our suppliers.  Secondly, as natural gas prices hit record highs a year and a half ago, we did a and are still doing a lot of alternative fuel conversions (natural gas to non-petroleum liquid fuels, wastewater digester gas, and landfill methane gas) on boilers, thermal fluid heaters and other types of equipment which rely on forced draft burners with capacities of 1 million Btu's and up.

Local companies like John Zink are doing huge business with alt fuels and they are not being subsidized to do it, we aren't taking a penny nor a credit from the gov't either.  There might be funds coming into our coffers from companies who are partially on the dole via SBA loans and tax credits.  Point is, there's quite a bit in the way of trickle-down economics on alternative energy which benefits a capitalist economy.

We have set up quite a few animal rendering plants to be able to burn animal fats and restaurant waste grease to create their steam.  Net result: about $2 less per million Btu's than natural gas in units which burn up to 50 million btu's per hour.  That is a significant savings and the thermal output efficiency is actually a few points higher while emissions are either about the same or lower than NG.  The emissions are far lower than petroleum oils like diesel or bunker C.

Oh yes, before I forget, Algore's inconvenient truth:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

Typical lib- "I'm going to tell you to do what I think is best for you then I'm going to do the exact opposite."