Continuity, rather than a new beginning, marks the seamless transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. George W. Bush waged expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama continues to wage those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a manner that the Republican leader in the Senate finds "hardly distinguishable" from his predecessor. Bush ran up unprecedented deficits. Obama runs up unprecedented deficits. Bush's last 100 days were occupied with bailouts for bankers and automotive companies. Obama's first 100 days are marked with spending the bailout money on banks and car companies. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Dan, seems like you're making very generalized and unfair connections between George W Bush and Barack Obama. Obama is not continuing Bush's wars, he's cleaning up the mess. As most people understand we can't just up and leave Iraq without throwing the country into chaos, completely up for grabs to whatever extremist group wants it. Afghanistan is where this "war on terror" should have been the entire time, now we're left with the task of tracking down Bin Laden...again.
FYI, the reason Mitch McConnell doesn't see any difference in Iraq policy is, surprise, he's an idiot.
Bush ran up unprecedented deficits on a plethora of stupid and useless programs not to mention the most devastating, an illegal war based on false pretenses. Obama's spending may look similar if all you're considering is it's massive dollar amount. Then again it takes massive spending to undue the massive damage Bush did to my beloved country. Obama is not simply spending money, he's spending it in key areas to...wait for it...stimulate the economy!! ta-da! Even the most fanatic Obama supporter doesn't expect such massive change in such a short time. It's gonna take a while, check the state of the economy in 2012 and get back to me.
In conclusion, one might say that Bush left Obama with a giant flaming bag of poo on the white house porch, Obama is now tasked with putting out the fire without getting his foot dirty.

It is amazes to know there are people who believe the best way to get rid of a giant flaming bag of poo is to sit three more just like it on the porch right next to it. That this is the majority opinion explains our problems quite well, I think.

I mean, how do you argue with logic like that poster before last? It's confused hombres like that who have delivered us a destroyer like Barack Hussein Obama. Poo indeed.

Jim, most of the spending in the "stimulus" bill isn't spent yet. A good deal of it won't be spent this year. How is that stimulating the economy?

I suppose you think he's keeping the wiretaps because it takes time to repair the damage that Bush did with his wiretaps.

Obama is doing more damage than Bush ever did. He's ushered us toward a Banana Republic style of government by allowing differing political decisions to be prosecuted. He's going to end up raising taxes (through cap-n-trade) in a time of recession. He's converting the bailout money into voting shares in every company. They've asked to be able to take down any company for "economic emergencies" as well as take down any internet node for "cyber emergencies". Had Bush done any of this the dramatic left would be looking for ovens and gas chambers about now.

What would McCain have really done differently? News flash for ya: Nothing!

Only his tax cuts really might have continued the failed Bush legacy of the trickle down effect.

As well, he would have us at war in Georgia and Pakistan if he had his way.

Somehow though you would find some asinine way of still calling him a 'conservative' when that word is dead.

"He's converting the bailout money into voting shares in every company. "

Last I saw, it is putting people to work in my city with infrastructure jobs. Stop with the conspiracy theories and look at reality.

I doubt there are many around these parts who call McCain a "conservative", Charles. I've actually made much the same argument you did there citing McCain's own words.

No one is weaving any conspiracy theories here, either - certainly not in this thread.

But I am thinking seriously of adopting your idea of stimulus for myself. I am sure, for example, if I could just take a little bit of cash from each of my several of my neighbors for my own, and if I empty the savings and college trust funds I have going for my three kids and divert it to my day-to-day account, my short-term personal "infrastructure" and economic well-being will see a marked improvement too. Thanks for the great idea!

I probably need to stop reading a conspiracy rag like the NY Times then:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20bailout.html?_r=1&ref=business

And both "shut down" questions have been asked. And like I said, if it were Bush you'd be looking out for ovens and gas chambers. That remark is sarcastic and does not suggest that I'm right to do so in the same instance. It's just sums up my view of the histrionic left.

I don't remember that many "level-headed" people on the left disputing the popular equation: Bush=Hitler. Water was trickled down people's noses during one regime--and perhaps a Koran was flushed and privates were laughed at. 6 million people were liquidated in an ardent devotion to the "aristocratic principle of Nature" in another.

Obama has continued the wiretaps, and he has been pushing the "localization" of radio in a time of unprecedented power grab at the federal level. "You people just need to talk about your communities, be more locally focused."

I doubt if that fits the founders idea of press as a watchdog on the power of government. But don't worry, they'll bailout the liberal lapdog newspaper industry for the watchdog role. And we'll all be happier and safer with government picking which press can cover national topics and which ones shouldn't.

What do you think a Home Owners Association does? If you took the conservative 'laissez faire' approach with a group of condos, guess what, nothing would ever get done due to the selfish nature of humans, and everyone suffers as a result. No one wants to cut the grass, so we pay others to do it. Likewise, do you want to build the local bridge? No? Cus neither do I... so we all pay for someone else to do it because we all want the grass cut(bridge).

Now Jorge or Gerardo (your local grass cutter/bridge builder) has a job, and will buy things because he is a conditioned consumer and a leech on the lives of the rich man. Hence the driver of mega corporations' profits are put back to work and fat cats get their money back... a little different than what you propose.

You probably think we are just 'taking' money from rich people, but in essence we are giving them a purpose and a job because without the active consumer they are unemployed as well. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul, so that Peter can sell Paul more worthless crap.

Oh, by the way, I just love how every concern the political opposition has about the power of centralized government is "conspiracy". It just tells me that I'm again dealing with the psychic left:

Liberals are good, and so if they take power they are only doing so for the concern of "fixing" the country. Power increases their ability to handle the problem. Conservatives are bad and mean and only interested in helping out corporation, so even though we argued before that incremental power creates incremental ability, they are just trying to increase their power for power's sake.

Obama, after all, has to recover from Bush's presidency!!! All Bush had to do is recover from the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor--and that's only IF HE DIDN'T DO IT HIMSELF!!...particularly to justify grabbing up all that power. That power is scary, because we know that conservatives are bad.

Just a side note on Pearl Harbor, it got us into the biggest war that America had ever fought, most casualties ever taken by Americans in a time of war, and ended with massive losses on the beach at Normandy and the most progressive administration for that time dropping the atomic bomb (which has been for the left ever since a true definition of terrorism.) The equal to the attack that made us commit to that as a course of action was the simple lot of Bush. That's all. Obama has the devastating job of pulling us out of a recession and repairing America from George Bush, the power-grabber. So all the power that Obama can grab is just going to help him in this task, right?

Sea King, regarding the "wiretap" issue, this is probably one of the few area's where i would disagree with our president. I wrote him a letter just a few days ago explaining my frustration that so far he has no plans to reverse the Bush policy.

However when you say "He's going to end up raising taxes (through cap-n-trade) in a time of recession", I don't think you fully understand the scope of his plan. Yes things will be tougher for some companies because of cap-and-trade laws but it's necessary to usher in the shift toward clean renewable energy. I mean really how would you do it, give coal companies a tax break then just trust them to completely change their business on its head?!?! The cap-and-trade system will make the playing field level so clean energy providers can compete and competition is good for business and that will create jobs likewise stimulating the economy. True most of the stimulus hasn't been spent yet, but like i tried to explain above it's going to be spent carefully so as not to be wasted like Bush did.

asdf, i'm sorry you don't understand logic, what's more disturbing though is the special needs center lets you out of your cage to use the internet?!?!

Sea King, OMG.... "All Bush had to do is recover from the largest attack on American soil" yeah and he did everything wrong...not just a trip-up on occasion, everything. and i'm even going out on a limb here and giving the Bush Admin the benefit of the doubt that Iraq wasn't all about the oil (which it obviously was). from faulty and even fabricated intell, to the number of troops sent in, to the lack of an exit strategy, and on and on. Bush has been wrong on everything.

Charles,

A homeowner's association is not an imposition by people who want better for you. You can be an individual in a neighborhood and not like paying your homeowner's association. But if the majority of people didn't want to have it, you wouldn't--depending on the rules.

It often is an imposition put on the neighborhood/condo by the builders. Builders start it up and because they want the neighborhood/condo to look salable, they put stipulations on how your property must look, or make provisions for the common area to look attractive to new prospects.

Plus, it's a matter of shared self-interest. We lose resale value the more things go downhill. So we have an interest in holding each over to certain standards or paying for things in common. But if the builders were done with a neighborhood, and no longer cared what it looked like because they had plenty of other neighborhoods to show their product, and the people didn't want it. I don't see how it would be imposed.

And I'm not against stimulus or Keynesian economics, so you're confusing being against a particular bad application of it with being against the general rule. I am against the often stated idea that it's "just as good" to have people dig holes and fill them back up--and I'd much rather have statues and bridges built, sidewalks/roads repaired, .... And in that the current bill doesn't ask for holes but public goods, it fits that bill. However, it's all the other things we are committing to spend for. If they had pared it down to a public works bill, people like me could have little to say about it. Because again, I accept the validity of Keynesian economics, and so did Reagan, for that matter.

One of the problems is is that if we create a huge demand for concrete and asphalt, we can only stabilize those companies that unfroze with this demand by a continued demand for concrete and asphalt. To not cause a crunch in the same companies that began the recovery, we would have to have private industry order concrete and asphalt at the same level. Reagan gave tax cuts, well within the stimulus actions the Keynes recognized. Thus the increase in demand is not an artificial bubble, but an increase in just that sector that you hope continues in high demand, the consumer sector.

The idea behind public works is that you give asphalt companies and road construction more demand, and they employ more people and people have more money to purchase services and goods (in the consumer sphere). The government isn't buying a lot of stamping machines, that's going to have to wait until manufacturing sees the consumer demand rise up and enough of a bubble to reinvest. So the consumer/business-good sector is our target. But if we have to deal with unemployment in the public works supplies sector, then the multiplier effect is going to dampen any upswing in consumer activity as these people must move from government goods to consumer goods--or at least have government goods continue at the same rate of demand.

Companies will need parking lots, so it's not going to put the asphalt companies under. They might need parking garages, so cement suppliers aren't doomed to fall. The hope is that business can offset miles and miles of road, sidewalk, bikepath, bridges and highway demand with the occasional parking lot, building, and parking garage. However, business only demands new construction late in the cycle, and definitely only after recovering losses and seeing new profit. The government must continue to stimulate an already stimulated economy or accepts a falloff in this sector.

The "Peace Dividend" is a good example, BTW. You had a lot of forts open, employing some people from the area, but mostly providing stimulus in the form of soldiers assigned to the area, and getting paid. The forts didn't prop up the local economy that much, except by demand for services and consumer goods by soldiers and their families. When the plants started to close, communities lost money. In time it would free up some capital previously used by the base, but the immediate effect was the "Economy, Stupid".

It's funny how liberals play the level-headed, understanding type until they get the "Peace Dividend" that they asked for and then blame the guy that gave it to them for economic effects, when they missed how removing thousands of paying consumers from an area would affect the level of demand for goods and services. It worked by the same principles that this stimulus is supposed to.

Only money currently being spent can "stimulate" the economy. Not money promised for future years where we haven't even assessed what is happening at the time.

Jim B,

And we have assurances in passing a bill that nobody could read fully--before anybody could read it fully--that Obama is doing stuff right? ...when Obama took an extra day or two to chose the venue for the signing? We have assurances for passing that bill that spends a majority of its "stimulus" in an unknown future business climate is right?

So Obama can't be compared to Bush because -- despite running on a platform against "failed policies"--Obama hasn't *failed* at anything yet?

In this case you'd probably want to say "Sure, ramming a bill through congress (that contains a majority of spending ) is wrong (provided that you could bring yourself to that word)! But think of what Obama is dealing with?!"

Thus, if you would make this argument you would say the gravity of the situation justifies an non-optimal situation. Thus, you have ignored what was not an invitation to insert your summary assessment of the Bush administration--but to consider what you seem to be asking me to consider: the gravity of the situation.

As far as I know, you don't want me to make a summary assessment of Obama's administration, so summary assessments can't equally be applied.

If you argue that cutting corners and discretionary power helps Obama deal with the horror of recovering from Bush(!!), then it seems out of place not to recognize--not just as the intensifier you seem to dismiss it as--the largest attack since Pearl Harbor and what that parallel event incurred. I forgot, the most progressive administration to date imprisoned thousands of Japanese citizens. I think that's orders of magnitude above our "Worst President in history!!" and "his" Abu Ghraib (at least to the extent that I understand it).

And if you say that the Iraq war is "obviously" about oil, in what way are you giving Bush the benefit of the doubt? I can tell you I'm giving Obama BOD--I can't just claim that, I have to demonstrate it.

I don't know you, but I'm thinking, based off of similar exchanges, that if I suggested that I am ignoring that Obama might not be a naturally-born citizen, that I can't get off that easily.

The three "explanations" from the left do not need each other. We could have been in it for oil. Bush could have gone to war for Jesus. Bush also could be paying Sadam back for a threat on his father's life. Even if both of the latter have a suggestion "Hey, while we're there, why don't set ourselves up for some oil," revenge against Hussein doesn't make it "obviously" about oil. You use "obvious" a little too facilely.

You're playing the psychic liberal again. And I know that it's popular among the left, but over here on the right, we don't buy it--but of course you know the true reason we don't buy it, right? --See, we can't even have the conversation that we don't buy it. That we don't buy it is condemnation of our partisanship enough.

Logic I think I understand. But initially spending a trillion more dollars that we don't have and then balancing that spending by using more taxation, borrowing more money and printing another trillion just so the President can pay back the partisan power base that got him elected doesn't seem logically sound to me.

And it's only the beginning. Many more trillions of dollars that we don't have to build the completely unworkable boondoggle of government managed Health Care; more economy killing taxation through Cap and Trade as a diversion to save a Planet that doesn’t need to be saved; more trillions for routing to some utopian lifetime government national indoctrina…eh, education system. Got the idea? I doubt it.

All of this from a guy who is controlled by far left money men and who holds his own country in such contempt that he apologizes for us regularly and bows to and kisses the ample asses of the lowest third world despots but is more than willing to sidestep the laws of our land and our timeworn traditions to prosecute and dummy up the citizens he has been sworn to protect and serve or to destroy the opposition party.

What tickles me about the voting block of educated guilty white liberals who put the Messiah over the top is how they think that Obama really listens to and cares about them. Here’s a clue: He might listen now but he certainly doesn’t care.

They will quickly learn how much Obama doesn’t care, and in fact holds them in contempt, once he naturalizes the 20-30 million illegal aliens who will vote in Democratic lockstep allowing for him to not need them any longer.

Sea King,

unknown future business climate? the future business climate is always "unknown" what's your point?

"Obama hasn't *failed* at anything yet?" you seem to be asuming he will, whereas i'm relying on those pesky facts you conservatives hate.

neither one of us would be able to "make a summary assessment of Obama's administration" because we're only a few months in.

"if I suggested that I am ignoring that Obama might not be a naturally-born citizen, that I can't get off that easily." because there is no creditable evidence to that end.

I never said there was a connection between revenge on Hussein and going to Iraq for Oil. If you'd like some of that evidence i can find it and get it back to ya.

I never claim to be psychic, but repeating policies that clearly don't work and expecting a different result is by definition insane

"diversion to save a Planet that doesn’t need to be saved"

asdf, you'd be hilarious if it weren't terrifying that there are others who think like you do. Do the rest of us a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool.

There's a crazy person posting here. And it ain't me.

You are crazy that you would play russian roulette with the earth and pull the trigger to find out what happens. Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager? Can you see how it applies here? Is it more dangerous to believe in global warming and change or to not believe and not change? You can not logically say the former.

great point xarp

Jimb,

We're clearly talking past each other. If I said "Obama has failed," I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be a point of contention (not to mention that I wouldn't try to make that point). So the only relation that Obama has to "failure" is "not having done it (yet?)". Recognizing that relationship is not "asuming he will [fail]".

That we know the parameters of any possible failure he may make is not one of those "pesky facts" we conservatives "hate", it's an assumption.

On the other hand, you're ignoring comparative elements and making ADD observations to reassert your worldview.

"neither one of us would be able to 'make a summary assessment of Obama's administration' because we're only a few months in."

Doh! I only knew that "summary assessments can't equally be applied" I didn't know WHY I wrote that. In fact, I didn't have a point in writing that, the words came to me in a dream "Summary assessments of Obama's Administration cannot be applied..." (I think it was a hamster in a bowler cap.) After all, I'm unfamiliar with the whole concept of "having a reason" for something I write! Thanks for clearing that up.

Wait. I might have said that to comment on comparatives... Hunh? the point might not actually be that we can't--whatever reason we can't--the point might have been that our perspective to assess over time what the current president hath wrought cannot be considered in parallel.

"'if I suggested that I am ignoring that Obama might not be a naturally-born citizen, that I can't get off that easily.' because there is no creditable evidence to that end.

But then you don't relate that back to having said it and how it would relate to you assessing my statement that I'm giving him the BOD.

I'm going to sum this up and hope you follow:
Dan originally made a point about the continuous similarity between the two administrations policies. This is something that can be done comparing event and current situation to preceding situation. You faulted him for not making the same summary assessments you make, despite that you admit you would allow no summary assessment on Obama. So you admit that you have no standard of comparison, precisely in the way you argue that they must be assessed.

Pascal's wager doesn't apply here.

Nothing is infinite. If we view this naturalistically, our species will die out at some point--all will. So we gain a little more time, but an indefinite amount for our species to prosper. So our time to receive the gain is not infinite. The benefit received is not infinite, you do not know that you won't be paying back your winnings with a prolonged decrease in standard of living. The scenario, as given, depicts an indefinite period of "cutting back" or "sacrafise" for the payoff of living a little longer.

The value of this is unfixed. Different perspectives will assign different values to the living conditions which buy us more time. Some of us view "not eating meat" as a needless privation. So the value of that, needs to be assessed only with the proper view, meanwhile in Pascal's Wager the wager is between worldviews as they exist.

It's not Pascal's Wager, because there are a battery of assumptions before we decide which is better. Pascal's Wager is only a pick between the value of lying in the dirt for eternity, or living in bliss for an eternity. Now, it's hard for us to assess the value an eternity of bliss, but given a blissful situation, it's hard to assess a time for it to end as well.

"Saving the planet" is possibly living in mudhuts and eating weeds--and giving dignity to the animals we might not defend ourselves against as well--until the sun burns out, as the "mere existence" that the Right to Die movement has opposed.

Actually, I'm really more terrified and marginally sympathetic that there are liberal lemmings like you in existence jimb. Cause it isn't those Bible thumping "Right Wingers" that are the fascists wanting to take away my freedoms in the name of what they deem is right, it's the ill informed loons on the left like you that want me to go back to the horse and buggy and slap the cigarette out of my hand.

Sea King, i see what you're saying about contrasting Bush to Obama. My point was simply that one can't make an assesment of the Obama administration due to the fact that it's only a few months old. We can however make an assesment of Bush because we've seen situations that arise which led to the presidents choices then the results of those choices over the course of 8 years.
Conclusion: Bush = EPIC FAIL
Obama on the other hand...we'll see.
My personal opinion of the job he's doing is not complete yet but being the fire-breathing-angry-liberal that i am, i have high hopes. and thats saying something since i dislike most government officials. Simply put, Dan only displays his own ignorance by trying to compare Bush and Obama.

your comments about "saving the planet" are disturbing to say the least. No one, not even the most liberal are talking about living in mudhuts and eating weeds. However we're gonna have to do something soon: http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/u/what_is_at_risk.htm

asdf, no one is trying to take away your freedoms or bring the country back to the horse-and-buggy. quite the contrary, i'd be happy if you just got a little smarter, so as to start making sense. maybe have a point on occasion, with facts to back it up.

I'm not sure if man caused global warming is real or not. There is still much debate among scientists as to the reality of this. Due to the agenda of the main stream media one does not hear much about it in the main stream media but there is still substantial doubt among scientists.

Personally I doubt it is accurate. The primary driver of the climate appears to be the sun. Man and his carbon footprint is simply not significant enough to alter the climate on a wide scale.

While I'm not sure about man caused global warming, what is clear is the obsession of America's leaders with this theory has reaped some bitter fruits. Because we are so worried about it we have been unable to adequately drill for more oil in the United States, develop more coal resources, or build more refineries.

Building more refineries, drilling for more oil, and extracting more coal resources in the United States would have greater utility for our national security interests than invading Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other middle eastern counttry ever would have.

While the authenticity of man caused global warming is unclear, the ability of Middle Eastern terrorists and the nations who support them is clear. More research may be needed to confirm whether whether man caused global warming is accruate. In the mean time, it is unwise to sacrifice our national security interests based on a theory of man caused global warming that to date has little evidence to prove its validity.

B.Poster, no offense intended but you're way off base. There really isn't much debate on Global Warming, the only reason it seem like the issue is still up-in-the-air is when the 24hr news shows want to talk about it they always get two opposing sides. This creates the illusion that it's an equally contested debate when what you're not seeing is that 99% of all scientists in the applicable fields are in agreement: global warming is happening and we are at the very least the primary reason.

"The primary driver of the climate appears to be the sun."

really?!?! wow, it's like you're trying to reduce the inner workings of a complex pocket watch to a single gear. while you're right that the sun is hot, it's a little more complicated than that. You have to factor in a lot of other variables that play a significant role in our planets climate, like the earth's tilt in it's orbit, distance from the sun, tectonic plate movements, volcanic activity, ocean currents, ozone layer, even our forests absorb energy from the sun before it hits the ground. Do a little research on the matter (lord knows there is enough data out there) and it will become abundantly clear that causing damage to one area can cause another to fail also.

When the 24 hour news talk shows discuss global warming, the supporter of the theory goes first. Those who oppose go next. Then the supporter gets to close out the debate. All the while, the moderator agrees with the supporter of man caused global warming. This is not much debate at all. They put the person opposed to global warming on the show to give a fig leaf appearance of being non partisian. Admitedly sometimes Fox News does a better job of trying to be somewhat non partsian but most of what we get from the main stream media is simply an appearance of being non partsian.

The sun does seem to be the primary cause of tempature change on earth. In fact, planets such as Mars have experienced global warming in the recent past, however, now we appear to be on a cooling trend. The planet seems to be getting cooler, not warmer. The issue of man caused global warming is far from settleed, however, if our only source is the main stream news media we would think it is. The more research is done the more the theory of man caused global warming appears to be off base.

If it makes people happy, I'm not opposed to developing alternative energy sources that reduce our "carbon foot print." Any such technology that will replace oil is, at best, decades away. Its also going to be VERY expensive. Its understandable why some would balk at very expensive technologies that are decades away, at best, all to solve a problem that probaly does not exist or at worst might exist.

This is in contrast to the threat of Islamic terrorism. This threat is immediate and is getting worse. Iran is about to get nuclear weapons. The Taliban is about to take over Pakistan. When they do, they are gong to get Pakistan's nukes. When the Taliban gets Pakistan's nukes, Al Qaeda is going to get them to. In summary, man caused global warming is a possible long range threat that may not even be a real threat at all. The Islamic terrorist threat is immediate, real, and growing.

Alternative energy sources will get us nothing in the immediate term or even in the near term in regards to defending the United States from the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. There are proven technologies that will help us in the short and near term. This is oil, natural gas, and coal.

In addition to drilling for more oil, building more refineries, and extracting more coal, the United States can also utilize coal to oil technologies. The United States has more coal reserves than any where else on earth. If we use coal to oil technologies, we might be able to become energy independent in only a few years. At the very least, we can make a dent in our dependence on foreign energy sources. Many of these sources do not have our best interests at heart. As stated previously, this would give us greater utility for our national security interests than invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq ever would. In order to implement such common sense solutions, we will need to get the enviro whackos out of the wary.

Sometimes I question the faith of people to see through propaganda. According to a recent Rassmussen poll only 34% of Americans believe humans are responsible for global warming. This is inspite of MASSIVE propaganda efforts that suggest that humans are the primary culprit.

Maybe people are finally catching on. I think the recent cooling trend is having an effect on what people are thinking. Also, the proposed solutions to a problem that may not even exist are very costly and run the risk of hamstringing our economy. I think its understandable why some people might balk at such things.

Why is it that the proponents of man made "Global Warming" won't debate the issue head to head with informed people of the opposition? What are they afraid of?

They are afraid that they will be exposed for the charlatans that they are and their religion will be showed for what it is: false.

Indeed, it is the Sun that dictates what happens environmentally on our Planet. And to believe that we small insignificant animals du jour have the power to destroy or do any harm to the Planet is the height of conceit and self-centered hubris.

Al Gore? He's a huckster who decided that politics was too hard to compete in and that there was more money in fooling some of the people some of the time and letting his friends in politics complete the cycle by pushing his phony baloney policies.

Keep in mind, Gore was heavily into the oil industry via Occidental and before that, he was heavily into the tobacco industry. Now he's the false profit and salesman for man made "Global Warming".

But the lefties are eating it up baby. Dumb $hites.

I watched "The Kingdom" again last night. Good movie and it shows if there was ever a reason for us to develop our own energy and at least become fossil fuel independent from countries that foster and export terrorism, it's Saudi Arabia as the prime example.

i guess it's pointless to try and get you guys to listen to reason. may your children and grandchildren forgive you. good day...gentleman

No, may your children and grandchildren forgive you for supporting a President and Congress that will affect their generations with much more far reaching impact than anything that will happen to the environment.