And what on earth makes you think I care in the slightest what the citizens of Alaska want? Or even what is good for them? Are you under the completely bizarre impression that my concern for Alaska has anything to do with Alaskans? I’m sure a fair percentage of Brazilians are gung ho for stripping the rain forest to the ground and raising cattle until there is nothing left, too - So? People are selfish fucks that are completely concerned with their own needs and will happily sacrifice the planet to that end without thinking twice about it. And I should respect that because…?
It would seem that you, like most conservatives, see and value absolutely nothing but dollar signs. It would also seem that you, like most conservatives, think that the only thing worth taking care of on this planet is the endless stream of human beings that are destroying it and destroying everything else that lives on it so that every one of them, eventually, can have all the consumer goods and comforts that are possible. Because that’s really the most important thing of all, isn’t it? Prosperity for everyone. Economic development. Yum. Oh, wait, what’s that you say? One of the last truly wild places on earth will be turned into a pile of shit? Yeah, but Alaskans will be RICH! (not to mention those of us who just happen to be heavily invested in oil stocks, but that’s a minor side issue. It’s the Alaskans we’re really concerned about.)
Yeah, we know that this is not a sustainable means of energy, but that probably be an issue in our lifetimes, so why care? My kids will be RICH! No, wait, I mean Alaskans…
Excuse me while I go hurl.
I don’t think it’s any more “irrational” than the reaction most die-hard conservatives when Clinton was first elected. Or is it only acceptable to be an angry contrarian when it’s in line with your own views?
The great thing about being a Republican right now, is to see the Dems behaving in a manner for which they have criticized Republicans for 8 years. Zenster’s grouping of random “facts” to suggest a conspiracy is so much liek those circulated by the right wingers re Clinton: “It all adds up!”
And then the predictions of huge disaster: Oil rigs dotting the land, big business stopping just short of shooting the poor in the street, children dying because they can’t get medical care…
Yup, it is good to be on the other side and see that, after all, Democrats and Republicans are not really that different as people after all.
Now I just want to see Democrats creating their own militias…
Michael Moore is a fucking whore-baited comedian whose rants have more to do with populist entertainment and less to do with political beliefs. Much in the same vein of Al Franken, who seems to think that just because he was on Saturday Night Live when it was funny, he’s therefore very brilliant and witty and is entitled to make short insubstantive comments about politics with no sort of honest academic justification for his beliefs. “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot!” Why? “Because he’s in bed with the Republicans” Why? “Because Republicans are bad and Democrats are good!” Why? “Because Republicans don’t care about poor people!” How come? “Because that’s what it means to be a Republican!” and so on. (Mind you, I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I just use this as an example of Franken’s comments) Michael Moore is just as bad except that he focuses more on business and less on politics and therefore relies on his lack of knowledge of Economics and Management instead of a lack of knowledge of politics. Just substitute the words “Republican” and “Democrat” with “Corporations” and “Worker” and we see that Al Franken and Michael Moore are indeed the same guy.
My thoughts on the election:
1.) Yes, if Ralph Nader had not run, Gore would have gotten many more votes. But just as Gore lost votes to Nader, Republicans were thwarted twice by Ross Perot, so turnabout is fair play. If Perot would have never run, Bill Clinton would be nothing more than the ex-governor of of a small southern state who once ran for President and he would end up being less historically significant than Walter Mondale (who at least was Vice President for four years).
2.) None of these subjective counting standards would have even been an issue if people would have just followed instructions on election day. But I feel this whole issue speaks to the difference in conservative and liberal (constructionism versus interpretation) ideologies. Just because someone is too stupid or lazy or otherwise incapable of following instructions - instructions intended to be as fair as possible to everyone in the first place -does not mean that the majority is therefore obligated to hold the hand of the minority.
3.) The Article II argument was bullshit as far as the USSC goes, but the 14th Amnd argument was perfectly legit and valid. After all the Equal Protection clause was used as sufficient federal grounds for interfering in Brown which was inherently a local state matter, so using it here makes just as much sense.
4.) Votes are invalidated all the time in elections when ballots don’t comform to the proper form or function. That’s the only fair thing to do. Refer to #2 in my list.
5.) Jesse Jackson is still an idiot who is not taken seriously precisely because his rhetoric belies the fact that he is less intelligent than he is a publicity hound. To say that this particular case is just as disenfranchising to Blacks as Plessy or Dred Scott is ludicrous and irresponsible. True, most of the undervotes that weren’t counted were in predominantly black precincts. So what? This is less an indication of conspiracy than it is an idication that the people voting there didn’t vote correctly. Refer to #4.
6.) I know a lot of people who disagree with me, but personally, I HATED Gores concession speech. I thought it was fake and smug and disrespectful. He should have been more remorseful or more serious or anything but the shrug-my-shoulders-I-gave-one-for-the-Gipper kind of attitude that he did have. The man is a disgrace.
7.) Could anyone really doubt that the Clinton Era would end without a scorched-earth fight to the death full of rhetoric, faulty logic, and double talk? It wasn’t surprising to me.
Doesn’t Clinton have the option prior to leaving office of declaring a protected refuge in Alaska, out-of-bounds to oil drilling? Maybe he’s waiting until the last minute for dramatic effect.
I’m not so sure Al would have done the right thing by the Alaskan environment, based on his big holdings in Occidental Petroleum and his penchant for flip-flops on major issues for personal political gain.*
*“I’ve planted tobacco! I’ve hoed it, tilled it, harvested it, roolllllled in it…”
Idea for hard-core Demo bumper sticker: I’ll give up my election grievance when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it
Stoid - How many televisions do you own? Is your apartment heated? Do you have indoor plumbing? Do you drive a car every day? If you answer “yes” to any of these, how can you honestly criticize Brazilians or Alaskans for wanting to improve their own quality of life when yours is already better than theirs?
There are those who speculate he might be doing that tonight, in the TV thing “gift to thenation”- that would sure be a nice consolation prize for this election!
The argument that he won’t is that such an act would piss off the Right and the Dems don’t want to give the Right any excuse to pull the same trick over something they care about. Politics sux.
I can’t see any political gain for him in flipping on this one. He’d lose his core support.
I’ve got it all…I’m a hypocrite…I have to be: I’m an American, after all, and as such and it is my patriotic duty to do my part to consume as much of the world’s resources as I can possibly afford.
Believe me, I’m trying to do better. In my own, small way. And I try harder every day.
stoid
living with the guilt of being wealthy. Relatively speaking.
Oh boy . . . let’s do rjung first, as he or she is obviously the less, um, capable of the two:
Wow, then it’s a good thing I specifically identified those reactions as irrational when I said, only a few posts above yours:
I’m not a Republican, as I think I’ve made abundantly clear, and I didn’t vote for Bush, although I did vote for Clinton in 1992. (Not in 1996.)
Stoidela:
Why are you assuming I’m a conservative? Let’s see . . . pro-animal rights, pro-gay rights, atheist, pro-choice . . . yep, raging conservative, here. :rolleyes:
Well, I’ve handily dispensed with the conservative thing above, thank you, but it’s nice to know that your much-heralded “Republidar” has finally broken down. Guess it only works on bag boys and checkout clerks, eh?
I think that saying “the only thing worth taking care of on this planet is the endless stream of human beings” is hilarious when you say it to a pro-animal rights ethical vegetarian. I really am having touble not laughing out loud in front of my co-workers.
I also think saying " . . . so that every one of them, eventually, can have all the consumer goods and comforts that are possible" is outrageous coming from someone typing the message on a consumer good that 90% of the world’s population neither owns nor has access to, and who runs a pornography website. Probably while she sits in a heated home and watches television. And who will later take her automobile or a diesel bus to go shopping. Good one.
I prefer prosperity to 30% unemployment, yes. I sure do. And to think people have accused me of being anti-humanist. It’s apparently quite easy to insulate yourself from the implications of your opinions if you pretend people don’t matter. I suppose that’s one way of solving problems.
Oh, it’s 1.5 million acres out of 19 million. Get a grip. You know what I was saying about a lack of perspective? That comes into play here.
No, they’ll be employed, instead of poverty-stricken. Apparently your concern for the Earth does not extend to its inhabitants, human as well as nonhuman. What a pity.
Like Al Gore?
Well, until there’s a glut of viable alternate sources out there that can fulfill our energy needs, it’s all we have. Believe me, given my druthers, I’d rather see wind, solar and hydro, even nuclear, over oil-burning electric generation, but it isn’t currently feasible. If you want to see more research done into non-fossil means, I’m right there with you. For now, though, you’re sure going to want that gas in your car’s tank, I’ll bet.
I AM a fiscal conservative and proud of it, and when I read a statement as outrageous as this, it makes me want to drop to my knees and thank God that the candidate you personally support lost the election. Thank heaven we won’t have someone who agreed with this sentiment running things.
That’s neither exactly fair nor particularly good logic, Jodi. Just because Stoidela supported Gore and Stoidela says she doesn’t care about Alaskans doesn’t mean that Gore agrees with the sentiment.
Y’all have plenty of stuff to get on Gore about without projecting Stoidela’s feelings to him, don’t you?
Stoid, honey, if you don’t give a rat’s ass about Alaskans, then why are you into conservation? Because you want the MOOSE to enjoy an unspoiled view? Either you care about PEOPLE or you don’t. And may I suggest that it puzzles me why you’d care passionately about “future generations”, yet have such an arrogant, heartless position about people who are alive and suffering TODAY. Shame on you and the high horse you rode in on.
Sting and Trudie Styler, both very active into rain forest conservation, realize that effective conservation efforts have to include helping the indigenous population find other means of supporting themselves. Because they are insightful enough to realize that Brazilians aren’t cutting down the rain forests just because they can. They do so because they want to feed. their. kids.
Were I in a similar position, I’d personally chop down the entire rain forest with an axe if I had to choose between my kids and a tree. Because desperate people do desperate things. That may make me an idiot in your eyes. Personally, I’d say I have my freaking priorties in order.
Male politicians are also judged on their looks. Nearly every female I know (and many males) has at one time or another expressed an opinion about President Clinton’s appearance. The media frequently hypothesized that his looks were a factor contributing to his overwhelming support from women. Many people also made judgement’s about Al Gore’s appearance on the Rolling Stone cover.
Males, females, politicians and non-politicians – all types of people are judged every day based on their appearance. It is an unfortunate fact of life, unless you happen to be amongst the lucky minority of The Beautiful Ones. This is one of the primary reasons I joined the SDMB, to practice conducting a discussion without considering the appearance of others.
Stoidela: You now have an opportunity to spew your hatred at an actual Alaskan: me. Yes, I’m from Alaska. Go on, tell me how much you hate me, I don’t mind, after all me and my family are so much vermin to you. It doesn’t matter to YOU if they have jobs or not, but it matters to me.
It may or may not be a good idea to open ANWR to oil exploration. But do you really think your hateful rhetoric is going to help keep ANWR closed? Or do you think that perhaps, an Alaskan hearing your little speech might decide, “Y’know…maybe we should open ANWR after all.” Don’t you think that perhaps the people who live in the state might have opinions on the matter? What if we Alaskans decided that, say, Manhatten island should be a nature preserve?
This is why “state’s rights” is such a huge huge movement in the west, because people like yourself attempt to trample on our rights. The issue for Alaskans isn’t so much what happens to ANWR, but who gets to decide. Is it you and your kind, or is it Alaskans? And don’t you think that your polarizing ideology is simply going to provoke opposition?
Have you ever been to Alaska? Have you ever talked to an Alaskan? Have you ever been to a bush village? Have you ever talked to an Eskimo or Athabaskan? Here’s a helpful hint: many people in Alaska are actually rabid environmentalists! Lots and lots of them wouldn’t want ANWR developed! But that doesn’t matter to you, the opinions of the people who actually live in Alaska are irrelevant to you, since people who actually live in Alaska simply aren’t qualified to make decisions about Alaskan land use. We’re all too ignorant, since we don’t live in New York, we don’t know how to dress, we don’t have trendy nightclubs, etc.
hey, I said I could tell by looking. Come on over here and let me have a lookatcha.
Like I said, excellent news. Though I confess I do find this hard to reconcile with what looks to be your agreement with drilling in Alaska.
Did I not confess my hypocrisy? Am I under some weird obligation to not care simply because I am in fact a prosperous American? That seems a bit backwards, doesn’t it? How would it be useful or helpful to the cause if I personally went and lived in a hut?
And by the way, what in heaven’s name does my website have to do with anything? (apart from the fact that by working at home I reduce my contribution to the pollution level here in LA.) Is my cute little porno website belching toxins into the air and someone forgot to tell me? Or were you under the silly impression that using the word “pornography” was supposed to heap extra shame on me somehow?
Actually, in the largest possible picture of what I consider important, human beings are slipping lower on the list every day. As a species, I think we pretty much suck. Oh, we have some damned impressive talents and abilities, no question about that. But our gross self-involvement is going to destroy what is, so far as we know, the only place in the universe to hold life, much less such a rich and astonishing assortment of same. We are supposed to be the stewards of this extraordinary place, and we really need to be replaced immediately, before the whole thing goes down the drain.
I disagree. Considering that they do not even know what is there, it could be the beginning of the end. It almost invariably is, you know. Slippery slopes and all that.
Yes, I believe I’ve made that quite plain. Nothing pitiful about it.
I think you have it backwards. Those sources are never going to be seriously developed so long as we are complacent about depending on oil. We will continue to be complacent about it as long as we are complacent about doing whatever we have to in order to get it. The only thing that will spur development of alternative sources is a credible threat to the energy supply. Waiting until we have drained the earth dry doesn’t strike me as the best way to attack the problem, but that’s pretty much what it looks like we’re going to do. We will wait until we have a crisis, because it’s expensive and difficult to do otherwise, and the people now living can profit mightily from keeping the status quo.
**
[/QUOTE]
Another great thing about being republican right now is getting to watch California reaping the rewards of government fixed prices and environmental concerns governing energy production.
As has been pointed out previously, if Gore had just won EITHER Tennessee OR Arkansas, this whole point would be moot. We wouldn’t be talking about short-circuiting an “illegitimate” presidency; we’d be talking about Gore’s transition team.
I identify with no particular political party, although I tend slightly toward the conservative side of things. I was disgusted by the Republican witch-hunt against Clinton, and I got heartily sick of those “He’s not MY President!” and “Impeach Billary!” bumper-stickers. It sounded like the whining my kids do when they don’t get their way.
Sadly, folks seem to be doing the same thing all over again, just from a different political perspective.
Careful . . . I never said I agreed or disagreed. I said that there were Alaskans, who legitimately should have the most-heard voices on this issue, who do favor it, and that I understand and agree with their arguments.
**
No, it was supposed to call attention to the fact that you live in a culture that provides you the opportunity to produce something that is patently illegal in several other countries and which implies a society with a lot of idle time to enjoy themselves. Personally, I like your site.
**
Good heavens . . . I am not even sure how to respond to this except to say that I think you grossly misestimate our ability to render the planet uninhabitable.
**
Actually, slippery slopes rarely if ever turn out to be the case. I suppose, in a bizarre semantic sense, everything is the beginning of the end, since the end must logically come at some point after today. But an immediate flood of catastrophic events? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Lemur, I have nothing against you personally, I do not wish you and your family ill in any way. I do not hate you, nor did I ever say or imply that I did. (It’s interesting to me how often I am accused of hating, when the only hatred I have ever expressed towards anyone around here is towards Dubya. And even then I wouldn’t characterize it as hate, more like disgust. I hate the fact of him being in the White House. )
But I don’t consider the Alaskan wilderness to belong to you, or to Alaskans in general, any more than I consider the Rain forest of Brazil as “belonging” to Brazilians. It “belongs” to itself or to everyone.
If the ONLY way that Alaskans can make a living is by destroying ALaska, then I think it is time you moved. If you are so poverty stricken that you cannot afford to get from Alaska to someplace else, then I am all for the government giving you a hand. But I will never be for destroying the Alaskan wilderness, old growth forests, rain forests, deserts, or oceans so that people can eat. People can find some other place to be and some other way to eat.
Besides, any employment solutions that involve destroying natural resources are, by definition, self-limiting. Instead of waiting until the resources are drained to find another line of work, why not just do it now?
Punditlisa:
I can answer you with this only:
“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creatures through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, we greatly err. For the animals shall not be measure by man. In a world older and more complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings. They are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” – Henry Beston
Since when is a deadline written into the law “arbitrary?” Or does this mean that the IRS is being “arbitrary” when they insist (as they will) that when they say 15 April, they mean 15 April?
And let’s not forget that the only reason that Floriduh became key was because one candidate managed to not only not win his “home” state, but lose the incumbent’s home state also.
This thread is proving that leftwing conspiracy theories can be as intellectually empty as any rightwing conspiracy theory. (I’ll take this statement back only if Clinton declares martial law and himself to be successor to Norton I come 20 January next.)
Since when is a deadline written into the law “arbitrary?” Or does this mean that the IRS is being “arbitrary” when they insist (as they will) that when they say 15 April, they mean 15 April?
And let’s not forget that the only reason that Floriduh became key was because one candidate managed to not only lose his “home” state, but lose the popular incumbent’s home state also. Winning either (or West Virginia) would have made that unleashing of a plague of lawyers unnecessary.
This thread is proving that leftwing conspiracy theories can be as intellectually empty as any rightwing conspiracy theory. (I’ll take this statement back only if Clinton declares martial law and himself to be successor to Norton I come 20 January next.)