« Exclusive: Patrick Neely From KEEP Responds to Horse Tax Proposal | Main | The Numbers: Current Kentucky Horse Industry Tax Breaks and Earmarks »

January 08, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So you favor a personality conflict over a simple, common sense environmental regulation that would not only save lives, but the land and water of the many communities that have been devastated by slurry spills. You make a whole lot of sense there...

YEP. Because with this bunch it will never pass.

Opportunists is a Senator's suit.

Why support a losing battle.

How about Boxer step aside so we could regain some sense of unity. If they get anything done it should be considered a hell of a lot less than what is possible..

umm...you do realize that Democrats (almost all of them) control the House and Senate by amazing numbers and that there are (a few, not many) sensible Republicans who support environmental protection to be able to pass this don't you? you do remember that the 2008 election wasn't just a landslide for Democrats, but for progressive Democrats most of all. Congress is further to the left than it has been since well before I was alive. The Democratic party doesn't have to play games anymore (well, we do technically need our two unseated Senators there) to pass the legislation it wants - and it wants environmental protection. And it wants to stop global warming, meaning that it recognizes the limited role that fossil fuels have to play in our immediate future, and their non-existent role in the long-term. They don't need to parse words.

Also, saying that you only disapprove of legislation because of the person sponsoring it makes you a tool - hope you recognize that.

Global warmer Taylor's computer must run on cat farts?

Shack, you do realize that your response just proved me point, while simultaneously negating your own, don't you? It's hard to call someone a 'shithead' for "getting personal" without automatically doing the same. You also realize that you're the one who openly stated that your only disagreement with Barbara Boxer's policy was that she was the one who proposed it. If that isn't "getting personal", I don't know what is. I haven't dragged your personal life, family, history, etc. into any of this (you do, however, by saying that I need an education - you have no idea what kind of education I've had), I called you a tool because your ideas directly mirror those of what my generation would call 'a tool'. oh, and while you're bitching about Barbara Boxer being a crazy liberal and spending all your time having a flame war against the ideological leaders of our country, enjoy the second TVA coal ash spill down in Alabama - you know, I'm sure those people care more about hating liberals than having their drinking water contaminated.

Same goes for Coal Man and Tom Tate on the tool thing. and Tom, I also hope you realize that you're putting words in my mouth - I have never said anywhere in my life that I advocate decreasing any individual or group's standard of living for any reason whatsoever. But the fact that our current policy framework and economic system make it impossible for me to live or work somewhere that isn't heated and powered by coal is what is a travesty.

Shack - do you care to moderate neutrally and call Coal Man a 'shithead' for "getting personal" with me, or will I have to continue to use reason to explain my point to all of you, only to be responded to with trite jabs about a lifestyle that I don't even lead?

I'll take it.

The hampster electric plant was a good idea dag-gum-it! Can you smoke hampter shit?

Hamsters? Richard Gere called and wants to know if anyone has seen his gerble.

Taylor's not a bad little feller. He has trucknutz on his bicycle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by Investing.com