Jump to content
You're right on 2 points about Trump. He has exposed the GOP corruption. And he is totally disconnected, to reality.
Catherine, to those Americans who are gay, or of color or somewhat to the left of Genghis Khan, Scalia was callous and insulting.
Fred, Mark, David, Gary, et.al., how you can read Dan Shores letter(s) and dispute the facts, not opinions, is a trademark of the GOP. Obama nominates, the GOP can sit on their hands or their heads. Let the American people decide again in the Presidential election. (Not the GOP's strong suit, by the way.)
The House turned GOP as much because the gerrymandering they did. There were more Democratic votes than GOP in the House races in 2012 but the GOP cherry-picked the districts. In 2008 Obama won by more than 6 mill., and more than 5 mill. in 2012. That shows more of a mandate than little gerrymandered district votes. All I'm saying, as Dan Shores did in his comment to my letter, is that NOT to give Obama the chance to put up a candidate is actually unconstitutional. Let him put one up.
And Dan is right about the lack of respect the GOP has shown this President. It's shameful and unprecedented. And don't try to say it has nothing to do with race, because that is certainly a factor. Another reason why the GOP is so wrong on this.
Would all of you who are slamming me please read Dan Shores comment, twice for those who need to. That's all I'm saying. And there is no refuting that. No POTUS has been treated so shamefully. Close your computers and move along, now.
Dan K, Obama can put up an ideologue that is as far left as Scalia was far right, if he could find one. But we know he won't. He'll choose a good one and he has many to choose from. There are several that will be a tough job for the GOP to not even consider or vote down. They play a game of Russian roulette if they carry out McConnell's statement. But then, logical, unbiased and constitutional thinking is not the long suit of the GOP candidates or hierarchy.
You deniers, (I know you love the term) keep talking grants are what keeps the greenie scientists going. You seem to forget about the BILLIONS the oil boys get to keep their arguments going. Many times bigger than study grants.
Check the time frames that Kevin kept referring to. Millions, billions of years. True. And what is happening now is taking only a decade or two to change things that took millions of years in the past. And yes, those effects did happen. But as Pat West put it, there were no humans when all those things were changing on Earth. Very doubtful if they would've survived.
So all those scientists are wrong. As is almost the rest of the educated world. Yet America, as always, knows everything. We are not getting warmer? BS. Why not at least play the safe card and change the foul air and water were creating? If you don't think things are any worse, go visit China.
Why isn't the fact that PP is the biggest reason that unwanted pregnancies and abortions are at an all time low since 1973, ever brought up? That's the reason PP is a good thing. Forget Sanger and all the other arguments anti-PP. It has helped poor women access to affordable health care, family planning and higher birth-rates of healthy babies and less abortions. End of discussion. You can't used doctored videos as proof.
I believe it is now 7 states that have investigated PP. And Rick Scott, Fla. gov., deemed it necessary to delete the findings since they proved nothing illegal was done. The question comes down to two things at least.
1. How many unwanted pregnancies, dangerous abortions, ruined lives, devastated families and even possible future welfare kids would come of defunding PP, our best tool for healthy womens lives.
2. How does a government shutdown that cripples the whole country's economic system at a time when the GOP is crying, wrongfully by the way, that we are still doing horribly, help either the women or the country?
Every one of the GOP candidates who are for defunding for moral reasons is ready to start a war Day One. Hypocrisy knows no limits.
It has Russell. But the problem is the time frame. What used to take hundreds of thousands of years is now taking a decade or so. The glaciers, which I have seen some personally, are disappearing in a matter of years, not eons. Scientists have been able to read the atmospheric changes from ice cores, tree rings, etc. and no time in the past have changes happened so fast as now. Of course they have always changed. The argument always makes climate changers into people who don't understand time frames, whereas it seems that "deniers" don't understand time frames. When a 300,000 year change occurs in 15-20, you gotta problem.
Last login: Saturday, May 21, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |