Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[HUGGY]

When you can find a conservative fighting "on the side of dirty air and dirty water", then you'll have a point. Until then, all you have is a strawman.

I don't think the right ever says they are "fighting 'on the side of dirty air and dirty water'."

They just fight against controls and agencies that protect the air and water with the claim "the free market" will somehow work all that out.

well, maybe after the water and air are all screwed up, the "free market" would resolve it... but not before a lot of people's air and water are trashed and maybe killing them.

but what are a few toxins among friends?

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

HMMmm...???? 200,000 miles divided by 10 would be 20,000 gallons of gasoline or 140,000 lbs. By weight that's roughly 28 times the mass of an average SUV. Even if you factor in about 50 percent efficiency for the work done by moving the vehicle as a "positive" outcome, the environment still takes a 70,000 pound hit from pollutants just from the gasoline alone. Burning the SUV only releases about 2-300 pounds of combustable material into the environment.

Your statement "sounds" clever but is scientifically bogus by a factor of much more than a hundred.

 

[MarcATL]

He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.

'Bout damn TIME!!!

He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.

do you think thats what he deserves?

Yes.

do you think thats what he deserves?

I do. He's had his fingers in corruption for awhile with no consequence.

so he deserves life imprisonment for playing with campaign money? seriously?

Hell YES!!!

 

[jillian]

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

The end result is the same. And I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion that government regulation is overwhelming and burdensome.we

corporations are amoral. they have zero... zip, zilch, nada, no interest in protecting the environment or acting responsibly unless it is financially not advantageous for them *to* act responsibly. I'd direct your attention to the number of superfund sites in this country; to what happened in bophal (sp?) and a myriad of other circumstances.

do you think your dryclearners down the street would protect the ground water from perc if there were no regulations?

 

[daveman]

I don't think the right ever says they are "fighting 'on the side of dirty air and dirty water'."

They just fight against controls and agencies that protect the air and water with the claim "the free market" will somehow work all that out.

well, maybe after the water and air are all screwed up, the "free market" would resolve it... but not before a lot of people's air and water are trashed and maybe killing them.

but what are a few toxins among friends?

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

HMMmm...???? 200,000 miles divided by 10 would be 20,000 gallons of gasoline or 140,000 lbs. By weight that's roughly 28 times the mass of an average SUV. Even if you factor in about 50 percent efficiency for the work done by moving the vehicle as a "positive" outcome, the environment still takes a 70,000 pound hit from pollutants just from the gasoline alone. Burning the SUV only releases about 2-300 pounds of combustable material into the environment.

Your statement "sounds" clever but is scientifically bogus by a factor of much more than a hundred.

A vehicle fire puts out particulates and toxins that burning fuel in an engine with proper pollution controls doesn't or can't.

 

[daveman]

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

The end result is the same. And I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion that government regulation is overwhelming and burdensome.we

corporations are amoral. they have zero... zip, zilch, nada, no interest in protecting the environment or acting responsibly unless it is financially not advantageous for them *to* act responsibly. I'd direct your attention to the number of superfund sites in this country; to what happened in bophal (sp?) and a myriad of other circumstances.

do you think your dryclearners down the street would protect the ground water from perc if there were no regulations?

Yes. Because they live here, too.

 

[sangha]

I'm not the one who launched an ad hominem attack, then pre-emptively admonished someone else not to come back with one in the next sentence, douchebag.

But thanks for playing anyways.

Naw Odd One, that was you.

Now listen carefully, [deleted, because I said I would be polite to the afflicted]. You have challenged me twice to a debate here on the Board, I have said yes each time enthusiastically, and you simply ran away.

Put up or shut up, [deleted, because I said I would be polite to the afflicted].

Wingnuts ALWAYS run away from their own words. They don't have the courage to defend their own words. And when you point it out, they launch childish personal attacks

Every. Single. Time. DiaperDon does the same thing all the time

 

[Intense]

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

The end result is the same. And I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion that government regulation is overwhelming and burdensome.we

corporations are amoral. they have zero... zip, zilch, nada, no interest in protecting the environment or acting responsibly unless it is financially not advantageous for them *to* act responsibly. I'd direct your attention to the number of superfund sites in this country; to what happened in bophal (sp?) and a myriad of other circumstances.

do you think your dryclearners down the street would protect the ground water from perc if there were no regulations?

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

 

[sangha]

When you can find a conservative fighting "on the side of dirty air and dirty water", then you'll have a point. Until then, all you have is a strawman.

Really? Wanna talk about the hydraulic fracturing type drilling that is being used for natural gas in the NE United States?

People's wells are being contaminated, and their water literally burns. And yes, there are many GOP types in support of that.

Good thing the Democrats in charge of Congress the past 4 years outlawed it, huh?

Oh, wait...

Umm, we're talking about conservatives, don; not R&D's. There are rightwing dems, and like wingnuts all over the US, they are just as happy to fight on the side of dirty air and dirty water as the rightwing repubicans.

 

[daveman]

The end result is the same. And I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion that government regulation is overwhelming and burdensome.we

corporations are amoral. they have zero... zip, zilch, nada, no interest in protecting the environment or acting responsibly unless it is financially not advantageous for them *to* act responsibly. I'd direct your attention to the number of superfund sites in this country; to what happened in bophal (sp?) and a myriad of other circumstances.

do you think your dryclearners down the street would protect the ground water from perc if there were no regulations?

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I agree there.

 

[sangha]

When you can find a conservative fighting "on the side of dirty air and dirty water", then you'll have a point. Until then, all you have is a strawman.

Really? Wanna talk about the hydraulic fracturing type drilling that is being used for natural gas in the NE United States?

People's wells are being contaminated, and their water literally burns. And yes, there are many GOP types in support of that.

i'd like to see the "burning water"... it sounds so biblical

Ask, and you shall receive

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Really? Wanna talk about the hydraulic fracturing type drilling that is being used for natural gas in the NE United States?

People's wells are being contaminated, and their water literally burns. And yes, there are many GOP types in support of that.

Good thing the Democrats in charge of Congress the past 4 years outlawed it, huh?

Oh, wait...

Umm, we're talking about conservatives, don; not R&D's. There are rightwing dems, and like wingnuts all over the US, they are just as happy to fight on the side of dirty air and dirty water as the rightwing repubicans.

Ahhh. So ANY politician, Republican or Democrat, who does things you don't like is a "conservative".

Easier than thinking, I suppose.

 

[sangha]

I don't think the right ever says they are "fighting 'on the side of dirty air and dirty water'."

They just fight against controls and agencies that protect the air and water with the claim "the free market" will somehow work all that out.

well, maybe after the water and air are all screwed up, the "free market" would resolve it... but not before a lot of people's air and water are trashed and maybe killing them.

but what are a few toxins among friends?

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

HMMmm...???? 200,000 miles divided by 10 would be 20,000 gallons of gasoline or 140,000 lbs. By weight that's roughly 28 times the mass of an average SUV. Even if you factor in about 50 percent efficiency for the work done by moving the vehicle as a "positive" outcome, the environment still takes a 70,000 pound hit from pollutants just from the gasoline alone. Burning the SUV only releases about 2-300 pounds of combustable material into the environment.

Your statement "sounds" clever but is scientifically bogus by a factor of much more than a hundred.

If the wingnut didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say

 

[sangha]

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I agree there.

In wingnut world, the people who own and work for businesses vote for politicians who hate them.

 

[Intense]

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I agree there.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

 

[sangha]

Good thing the Democrats in charge of Congress the past 4 years outlawed it, huh?

Oh, wait...

Umm, we're talking about conservatives, don; not R&D's. There are rightwing dems, and like wingnuts all over the US, they are just as happy to fight on the side of dirty air and dirty water as the rightwing repubicans.

Ahhh. So ANY politician, Republican or Democrat, who does things you don't like is a "conservative".

Easier than thinking, I suppose.

When wingnuts get stumped, they make stuff up. It's easier than thinking, I suppose

The fact is, the opposition to business regulations, such as those that protect the environment, is based on rightwing ideology. Some democrats are rightwingers, and as rightwinger, they believe that those environmental regs are bad. Just like the rightwing republicans think those regs are bad, and for the same reasons.

Democrat or Republican, opposition to business regulations, such as those that protect the environment, is based on rightwing ideology.

Let's see you dispute what I actually said (twice, and bolded) or if you will, once again, admit defeat by lying

 

[daveman]

You're not seeing people fighting for the right to pollute...you're seeing people fighting against overwhelming and burdensome government regulation.

No responsible business owner wants to dump toxins in the river. Yes, there are irresponsible business owners...just as there are irresponsible leftists who torch SUVs and release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

HMMmm...???? 200,000 miles divided by 10 would be 20,000 gallons of gasoline or 140,000 lbs. By weight that's roughly 28 times the mass of an average SUV. Even if you factor in about 50 percent efficiency for the work done by moving the vehicle as a "positive" outcome, the environment still takes a 70,000 pound hit from pollutants just from the gasoline alone. Burning the SUV only releases about 2-300 pounds of combustable material into the environment.

Your statement "sounds" clever but is scientifically bogus by a factor of much more than a hundred.

If the wingnut didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say

And if you didn't have that tired old nonsense to parrot, neither would you.

 

[daveman]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I agree there.

In wingnut world, the people who own and work for businesses vote for politicians who hate them.

Don't forget, folks...it's in your best interests to keep liberals in power. The liberals said so.

 

[sangha]

HMMmm...???? 200,000 miles divided by 10 would be 20,000 gallons of gasoline or 140,000 lbs. By weight that's roughly 28 times the mass of an average SUV. Even if you factor in about 50 percent efficiency for the work done by moving the vehicle as a "positive" outcome, the environment still takes a 70,000 pound hit from pollutants just from the gasoline alone. Burning the SUV only releases about 2-300 pounds of combustable material into the environment.

Your statement "sounds" clever but is scientifically bogus by a factor of much more than a hundred.

If the wingnut didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say

And if you didn't have that tired old nonsense to parrot, neither would you.

WHy don't you just admit the fact that you made up that nonsense about how burning a SUV creates more pollution that driving it?

Like I said, wingnut don't defend their own words. They lie, and when caught, they run away

 

[daveman]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

I agree there.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

 

[sangha]

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

I agree there.

In wingnut world, the people who own and work for businesses vote for politicians who hate them.

Don't forget, folks...it's in your best interests to keep liberals in power. The liberals said so.

In wingnut world, liberals don't own or work for businesses

If the wingnut had a real argument, based on the real world, he wouldn't depend on wingnut slogans