Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (170)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Public health care is a Christian option (79)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (73)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (52)
- The haves should help the have-nots (31)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (25)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (18)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (17)
ADVERTISEMENT
Liberalism and lead
Finally, this disturbing linkage has been established
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:49 AM PDT
Is liberalism caused by heavy metals? Dr. Heinz Dummkopf, of the Institute for Political Disorders, seems to think so. He has done extensive research into the effects of lead and other toxic metals on human belief systems. The results are quite revealing.
"A look at history tells us that most of the crazy stuff that happened in the 1960s was caused by people who grew up with lead-painted houses and toys, along with lead-supplemented gasoline," said Dr. Dummkopf at a recent press conference. "Look at Congress today. Most of these leaders grew up in the same era as well."
William "Billy Bob" Rodreel, local country and western bar owner, agrees with the scientist's findings. "Lead-ladened liberals have destroyed this country," he said. "I have tried to raise my boys to be real men."
Rodreel was referring to teaching his sons the highlights of firearm appreciation and hunting defenseless deer. "But all they want to do is smell flowers, read poetry and marry each other," bemoaned the middle-aged businessman. "What the heck has happened to our culture?"
Dummkopf has released his conclusions in a 650-page report, published by the Committee for Returning Sanity to America. Here are some:
1. Lead toxicity has been found in the blood levels of liberals born between 1940 and 1970, at 20 times the normal rate of the general population.
2. Those with the highest rates are politicians, liberal arts college professors and book-writing/blog-bloviating Bush-haters.
3. In contrast, conservatives have much lower levels of lead, but have much higher hop residue, found in America's cheapest beer.
4. People with high lead content tend to eat tofu, drive hybrids with "Baby on Board" stickers, and discipline their unruly children with "time out." These people, by a margin of 4-1, prefer that Congress simply conduct public hearings on baseball steroid usage, rather than deal with the people's real business.
5. On the other hand, the conservative control group, by an equal margin, like chopped meat tartare (mixed with Hamburger Helper), drive "dualies" with "Insured by Smith and Wesson" stickers, and use beneficial butt-kicking techniques to correct their kids. Most feel the same discipline approach is equally appropriate for present members of their legislative bodies.
Undeterred by critics, Dummkopf is pushing Congress to spend millions for continued research into this phenomenon.
"We must get to the bottom of this. We can't go on with half of the country suffering from a potentially fatal disease," he said.
Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer and satirist.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
SportsGuru wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:14 PM:
Liberalism and Lead ... slowly but surely, both will kill you eventually..... "
jeff wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:41 PM:
see: doublethink "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:58 AM:
to your Ignore list "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:56 AM:
" They found WMD's quite a while back. The PC White House was not revealing the info because they did not want to bring out who originally sold them, and where a large portion of them went
And right there when you referred to the Bush Administration as the PC White House was when I decided to put you on ignore. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:54 AM:
" WMDs the offense of leading the country into a war based on lies does not grow any less with the passing of time. "
Are you saying that at no time did Saddam create, have, or use WMD's? "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:53 AM:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&offer=&hidebodyad=true "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:47 AM:
" Republican Mel Martinez dispelled this lie about Cuban/Chinese oil drilling on the floor of the Senate. You can watch his speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hR14NF0es
LOL Martinez dispels lies? This guy was virtually kicked out of his National Republican Party chairman position. He is a RINO. There was a big petition drive to get him out, and he left.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008886866 "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:39 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:37 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:36 AM:
it would have been much worse. I don't know how you can vote for this chump given all the mistakes he has made.
Seizing defeat from the jaws of victory???
I'll have to think about that one:) "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:26 AM:
In any case, the final effect of the surge remains to be seen. There is no certainty that the gains made by the increased US presence will last now that the Administration is stripping soldiers out of Iraq to shore up our deteriorating position in Afghanistan.
If there is one thing the Axis of Incompetence is good at, it is seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. "
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:20 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:18 AM:
voted for the ear in Iraq. Again, the old talking point that the war in Iraq was ONLY about WMD's is wearing thin and is no longer mainstream thinking anymore. Even your party knows it just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.
Leonard, do you realize it's 2008? "
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:13 AM:
his ability to attract more of the anti-war crowd. It seems to me he's more concerned about his politics than the people. I'm not surprised. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:11 AM:
McCain repeatedly cited Iraqi WMDs as his motivation in the lead up to the war.
You can't just change the past to fit your current political agenda. "
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:03 AM:
If you think John McCain should sleeze his way out of this vote based on all the other evidence then, by all means,have at it. You're entitled to your opinion that the war in Iraq was not important enought to fight because there were no WMD's.
I figured by now you would understand that "No WMD's" is old hat. Perhaps you should get up to speed on the present
disposition of the war in Iraq. Old talking points just don't cut it anymore. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:41 AM:
McCain voted for a war to save us from Sadams WMDs.
Everyone now acknowledges that there were no WMDs.
Does that mean that McCain needs to "sleaze" his way out of his mistaken vote? "
Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:34 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:50 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:29 AM:
" Brian, with an answer like that, you should be a politician yourself. "
Ya got that right! :-) "
leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:07 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:02 PM:
" Brian, do you see any "inconsistencies" in McCain? Just wondering . . .
voter, oh McCain has inconsistencies, that's for sure. He's definately inconsistent in pointing out Obama's inconsistencies. He must be more vigilent in pointing them out. The liberal media isn't on his side at all at pointing them out. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:50 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:16 PM:
Given Bush's demonstrated skills at diplomacy, Ahmedinejad would probably walk away with half the Eastern Seaboard, the deed to Bush's Crawford ranch and Ann Coulter's virginity. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:06 PM:
He does still require Iran to suspend it's uranium enrichment before negotiations can begin.
Its all semantics. If you define any negotiations that occur before the Iranians suspend uranium enrichment as non negotiations then I suppose Bush's position is entirely consistent.
Similarly, if you define sex simply as sexual intercourse, then Bill Clinton' claim that he did not have sex with that woman is just as true. "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:21 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:17 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:07 PM:
Unfortunately, 50% of the voters in this country don't see the many inconsistencies in Obama. This is very troubling. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:00 PM:
G74, this post of yours confirms what I thought you might say.
Thank you :) "
Lodian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 2:57 PM:
Gerard, We appreciate your service very much...thank you. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:23 AM:
This comes back to my 'snake' analogy. No one with far-left leanings will ever be elected president. Clinton's centrist positions are only for political expediency. It didn't work for her obviously because she simply cannot be trusted. But she's far-left; of that I am certain. (IMHO)
Kucinich, no matter how you dice him is far-left and has no problem admitting it. But just how is he perceived by not only those on the right, center or just left of center? He's a joke - he'll never be taken seriously. "
t&c wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:22 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:18 AM:
No, I don't believe Bush has changed at all. As this pertains to the criticism of Obama it comes down to the idea of 'preconditions' that should always be determined prior to sitting down with any adversary.
Obama placed himself in a very precarious position when he stated that he would meet with these despots with no preconditions. While it appears noble and in line with his 'change' philosophy, such a notion is incredibly naive and very dangerous if actually adopted.
Obama's problem, of course is that he could not easily change his position because to do so would make him look unprepared and too inexperienced to assume the office of which he seeks. And he is absolutely correct.
The only thing he could do would be to very slowly 'adjust' his position in the hope that no one would notice. Ahh, but we've noticed, haven't we? "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:01 AM:
" Brian - as far as my military service is concerned, I am rightfully proud that I was permitted to spend seven years in the United States Air Force. I was fortunate to have never been called to war, although I believe I was adequately trained to do so.
However, my military service is something that I 'did' - it is not who I 'am.' I've never asked anyone to recognize or respect my offerings on this forum based upon that period of my life.
To my way of thinking, the significance of military service is not what any one service member may or may not have done but rather what they were willing to do. While a willingness to put ones life on the line for our Freedom ought to be implicit in citizenship, our service men and women make that willingness explicit when they put on their uniforms.
You may have never been called on to serve in combat to defend my freedom but you were willing and ready to do so and for that, you deserve my thanks. "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:45 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:43 AM:
Do you agree that Bush has not changed his position on Iran?
He does still require Iran to suspend it's uranium enrichment before negotiations can begin.
Why does the left see it differently? "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:35 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:34 AM:
While I cannot accurately decide what you meant when you stated, 'Girard, I think we all knew who you were talking about,' again I find it interesting how some are so incredibly clairvoyant that they can actually peer into my mind and come up with a conclusion like that. Clearly I was referring to Hillary Clinton as a far-left loon of whom I have no respect and find untrustworthy. That short thread regarding this matter is not ambivalent at all. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:28 AM:
However, my military service is something that I 'did' - it is not who I 'am.' I've never asked anyone to recognize or respect my offerings on this forum based upon that period of my life. My mentioning of those years in the past has only been to offer my real-life experiences as support for my stand in any debate that addresses the military.
I have no idea what is must be like for our current men and women in the military to fight the wars in which they are engaged now. My entire term of service was nothing compared to the sacrifices that these noble soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are making on a daily basis. I am immensely proud to be a veteran, of course - but I am much more proud of those who went before and came after me. "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:27 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:24 AM:
She is so out of touch. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 AM:
These blogs were a better place when you were debating.
They are a far worse place now that you have each resorted to childish name calling.
Shake hands, call pax and be done with it. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:22 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:20 AM:
Isn't Leonard a gas? "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:18 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:13 AM:
My reference here to the 'far-left loons' and those I find trustworthy was directed at Hillary Clinton. I was responding to Bob Hussein Loblaw's comments.
As for my feelings, once again you believe yourself to be very important, don't you? I don't know who or what you are; I've never met you and I really don't care to. To suggest that I would permit you to 'hurt' me is preposterous.
You did, however prove to me that you are anything but a worthy opponent. When confronted with someone whom you cannot shut down, you resort to your sophomoric name-calling and insults. It was you who crossed the line awhile back and as a result I reported the violation to the moderators of this board. I like the rules; they keep things civilized. You seem to think that you harbor all the knowledge, facts and truth.
I informed you that I will no longer engage you on this forum. Aside from this explanation that hopefully will cause you to move on to others with your vitriol and bile, I've kept my word. "
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:06 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:02 AM:
V-Obama's approach was more appeasement than anything else. His arrogance will get us in a lot of trouble if he is elected. He seems to think that all he has to do is hold up his hand and say stop and all of our enemies will be eating out of his hands. This is dangerous and naive. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:55 AM:
This is yet another knee-jerk reaction indicative of the left.
And I'm still laughing at Pelosi's plan of action to ease the gasoline problem by tapping 10 percent of the strategic oil reserve (a mere 3.5 day supply for the nation). She's a piece of work. "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:54 AM:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran
Back in May, Bush called Obama's willingness to even talk with Iran as appeasement. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:49 AM:
I get a kick out of Leonard with his self-proclaimed victories.
To each his own. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 AM:
L- I don't know what you are talking about. If you think the sanctions on Iran will be lifted without Iran meeting the preconditions you're drinking too much Obama kool-aid.
I still haven't been able to find any reference to Bush saying it's not in our nations best interest to talk to Iran. That said, I suspect this is something you saw in your crystal ball.
For the record: Talking and negotiatiing
are two different things. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:07 AM:
I don't know how I could be intellectually dishonest when every article I've read about the envoy to Iran says about the same thing.
If you were to take the time and read the article I've posted then you would agree with me. Instead, you blame me for what has been written in these articles. What else do you see in your crystal ball? "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:01 AM:
L-You only call G74 a whimpering baby because he won't kiss your butt.
I commend him for standing strong in his convictions. You're entitled to continue your cheap shots. I suspect you must do this to make up for YOUR lack of cajones. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:25 AM:
" girard, Brian, just who are you calling "loony"?
I doubt he gives it much thought. Its more of a reflexive thing, I suspect.
Meeting rhetorical defeat at every turn, Brian has no choice but to resort to the constant ad hominem. "
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:16 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:16 AM:
If Iran decides to suspend uranium enrichment there will be negotiations.
Get it through your head that the envoy
to Iran is a matter of testing the waters to see if Iran will bite.
Chuckle...
Does playing Clintonesque word games make you feel better about yourself.
The fact is that we are in the process of negotiations with Iran. Further negotiations will be required to establish the announced Interest Section. Further intellectual dishonesty on your part will not change the Administrations actions either for the better or the worst. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:11 AM:
" Well Leonard, I have no problem calling YOU a left-wing looney.
Of course you don't. I expect nothing better from you. The sad thing is that there was a time when I expected better from Girard. Those day's are past, he has apparently decided to adopt the Brian style of discourse. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:09 AM:
If anyone else had disrespected a veteran as you have you would be right there to pounce on them.
That's weak and you know it. I have, in the past repeatedly thanked Girard for his service to our country and I will do so again now. That service, however, does not give him a free pass to spend the rest of his life acting like a whimpering baby. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:00 AM:
" Brian - there are those whose hatred for President Bush is so deep and wide they will never believe him to be anything but evil personified. Arguing with them is useless.
G74- Yep, I know. But I'm always amazed how far the loones will go. "
Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:56 AM:
If anyone else had disrespected a veteran as you have you would be right there to pounce on them.
If Iran decides to suspend uranium enrichment there will be negotiations.
Get it through your head that the envoy
to Iran is a matter of testing the waters to see if Iran will bite. I suspect they will give us the finger. As a result, stronger sanctions will be put upon them. We're not the only country divesting in Iran. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:26 AM:
Your argument reminds me of Clinton trying to redefine the word is.
The proposed opening of the Special Interest Section is just the icing on the cake. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:24 AM:
Thus, when you see him whining about "left-wing loonies", he's talking about me. Also, when he gripes about those who are not "trustworthy" that's me as well.
Its all pretty pathetic when you think about it but I understand that Girard has his own problems that have led him to become a sniveling parody of the poster he once was, utterly incapable of confronting those who happen to have different opinions from his own. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:01 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:55 PM:
Rock me Sexy Jesus! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:27 PM:
I know this because I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. After eight years of her and her husband in the White House followed by her stint in the Senate as well as her failed presidential bid, it became apparent to me that she is incapable of even the slightest bit of integrity. In response to whatever comes out of her mouth I automatically dismiss it as a lie.
The difference, however is that I freely admit my disdain for Mrs. Clinton and have advised anyone who wishes to debate with me regarding her that I simply won't give her the benefit of any doubt. If those who feel the same way about Bush would admit their obvious bias against the man, it would save others a great deal of time by simply ignoring their tirades. My advice for you would be to simply take that into consideration. Of course this is only my opinion. "
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:45 PM:
" Do I hear the sound of flip-flops in the White House??? Heheh. "
Bob Hussy, perhaps you should read the articles I have provided too before you jump to conclusions. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:31 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:08 PM:
Leonard, Read this article carefully. It states there will be no negotiations unless Iran suspends it's nuclear enrichment program. "
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:02 PM:
Leonard, this is not the only source where it states there will be no negotiating. I have found many others. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:12 PM:
Check your sources, they must be out of date. "
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:19 PM:
After further research, this is not the case. I could have just as easily have accused you of allowing someone to spoon feed you this misinformation.
But I didn't. "
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:13 PM:
Those going to Iran are under strict orders to listen to what Iran has to say but not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. "
Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:00 PM:
" A conservative I know suggested to me that Bush may just be opening negotiations with Iran to damage the Obama campaign.
This raised an interesting question. If Bush really thinks (as he has repeatedly stated) that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest and if he is simply negotiating with the Iranians to gain a political advantage for his party, is he not betraying his own oath of office? "
Leonard, where did Bush say that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest?
Actually sir, Bush has said that we should only negotiate with Iran if there are preconditions. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:00 AM:
Apparently someone's feelings are still hurt.
The time has come to man up, my friend. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:41 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:23 PM:
Again, if there are abuses on these boards it is hardly 'ratting' to bring such incidents to the moderators of this forum. The discourse often becomes unbearable as a result of a few who disregard the rules; that's why the 'Report Abuse' button is available for each blog entry. "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:55 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:50 PM:
This raised an interesting question. If Bush really thinks (as he has repeatedly stated) that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest and if he is simply negotiating with the Iranians to gain a political advantage for his party, is he not betraying his own oath of office? "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:24 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:40 PM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hR14NF0es "
Brian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:28 PM:
" You're right. What lacks focus are liberals. They would rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas and let the Chinese and Cubans drill off of our shores - and their technology is a lot less advanced than ours! "
Dyan, this is why liberalism is a mental disorder. No one else but liberals would say it's ok for other countries to drill off our coast and have a higher rate of an oil spill than us. It seems to me their logic
is outrageous. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:30 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:34 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:24 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:38 PM:
First, if there are ever any comments made that violate the rules and policies clearly stated at the bottom of the page next to where we click the 'Post Comment' button, they should be reported to the LNS through the 'Report Abuse' system.
Second, because someone may be a professor doesn't mean that they are always correct or that we should automatically accept his/her opinions as our own, does it?
Third, while I have never made any disparaging comments about your deceased husband (I wasn't even aware that you are a woman or that you were ever married), I do not know if anyone else knows these facts either. That being said, there are those here who for some reason expect others to take into account facts that are never placed into evidence. Are we expected to read minds as to what may be personally offensive to others? "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:45 PM:
made insulting remarks about my deceased husband. So let's not pretend you guys are as pure as the driven snow. "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:30 PM:
dyan, some of the posters here have been writing extensively for years--their facility with the language, wit, and intellect on display in these forums every week. What other evidence do you need? "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:17 PM:
Dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:05 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:06 AM:
Nevertheless, if I hadn't written one word and was never 'published' (I use that term advisably as it applies to the LNS), do you still suggest that I would have no standing to criticize others' work?
This forum exists precisely for the purpose that you seem to believe should be restricted. And youre not alone, of course. I find it interesting (and often frustrating) that those who cannot intelligently voice their opposition to any offering (from either an author or blogger) move on to personal attacks, threats, sophomoric name-calling, etc. While I fully understand that a few subjects (politics, religion at the top of the list) create emotions that are often difficult to control, losing that control only exhibits literary and personal immaturity. "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:21 AM:
If Ebert loves a movie and Roeper hates it, does that mean it is trash? Arm chair critics crack me up! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:15 AM:
I can hardly draw a straight line but I can certainly recognize 'art' from trash. The very same applies to how we analyze the literary offerings we come across on a daily basis, especially within the Lodi News-Sentinel. "
Stanford Man wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:34 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:24 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:48 AM:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3457319.html
Oil floats, so the storm surge washed a great deal of the spill inland, contaminating not only marshes, but residential areas as well. "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:41 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:39 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:26 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:23 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:15 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:12 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:05 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:02 AM:
" How much oil was spilled in the Gulf during Katrina? Zero! "
LOL! You'll believe just about any talking point blasted over the airwaves, won't you? Katrina was the cause of 124 off shore spills and hundreds of onshore spills. According to Houston Chronicle report (and the US Mineral Management Service):
"The quantity and cumulative magnitude of the 595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and inland, rank these two hurricanes (Rita and Katrina) among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history." "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:52 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:42 AM:
Giovanina wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:33 AM:
Lead lined liberals, what a concept. "
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:32 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:
Modern techniques are safe. Our dumb laws were passed back in the sixties when safe thechnology was not available. How much oil was spilled in the Gulf during Katrina? Zero! "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:28 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:39 AM:
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:12 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:02 PM:
Liberals don't want you to know that natural oil seepage contributes to more oil in the ocean and beaches then oil production. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:22 PM:
Well, first of all I don't believe I would count anyone on these blogs as a 'friend' save one or two.
Second, maybe for some the idea of having only those surrounding me that agree with me might sound tempting, it would get awfully dull after a very short time.
I would rather hear honest opinions and assessments than those who go along with everything I believe so as not to rock the boat. That's not to say that I don't expect a little respect and sense of decorum in the delivery of their opposing thoughts, I do - but sadly that is something that is becoming rare on forums such as this.
Gee, I hope that's not too harsh. "
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:31 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:22 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:56 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:07 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:00 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:15 AM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:57 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:26 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:04 AM:
"I would rather be a beer guzzling redneck than some of the things liberals are stereotyped as. "
Why do you think that you need to identify with a stereotype? "
voter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:02 AM:
How about you give us a literary analysis of this piece. I'm all ears. "
voter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:01 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:47 AM:
Steve Hansen is a satirist. You must read between the lines to understand him.
I would rather be a beer guzzling redneck than some of the things liberals are stereotyped as. "
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:42 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:41 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:41 AM:
Modern liberalisms irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the worlds political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty. "
voter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:35 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:24 AM:
Your satirical approach to this disorder is quite revealing. Perhaps you can join forces with Michael Savage.
His book "Liberalism Is A Mental disorder" is right up your alley. "
dyan wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:40 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:00 PM:
citizen wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:55 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:34 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:25 PM:
citizen wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:13 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:03 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:59 PM:
citizen wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:54 PM:
citizen wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:53 PM:
citizen wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:52 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:24 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:31 PM:
Liberals can dish it out. They just can't take it. "
voter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:24 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:37 AM:
Wickster wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:41 AM:
I think the doctor needs to spend a little time on the couch. "
Comments on this story are now closed.