[quote]pushharder wrote:
I almost hit a bald eagle last night driving down the highway. He was in flight and moved upwards at the last second. Easily a six foot wingspan.[/quote]
Damn, having never seen something that big I would have pissed my pants thinking it was Mothman.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Bald Eagles are actually doing better than they have in a long time, they were taken off the endangered species list a few years back.
Anytime humans build anything it will have an environmental impact. Anyone who argues otherwise left or right is an idiot. I’m sure brietbart has a long history of being anti-oil though correct since they appear to be trying to take this environmental stance right?
I wouldn’t know I don’t often read the far left or far right mouth breathing garbage. [/quote]
H Factor, it is the fact the Obama Administration is fining Oil Companies, but letting off the hook Wind Farms that kill thousands and thousands of birds. It is the double standard that this administration is known for.
[/quote]
Hypocrisy from politicians has been and always will be the norm. This is hardly a “special” hallmark of the Obama administration. Here in conservative central Kansas we have issues of this type of hypocrisy all the time from crazy Sam Brownback and his cronies. Saying one thing and doing another is not a hallmark of only the left. [/quote]
So because every one does it that is ok with you?
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I almost hit a bald eagle last night driving down the highway. He was in flight and moved upwards at the last second. Easily a six foot wingspan.[/quote]
Damn, having never seen something that big I would have pissed my pants thinking it was Mothman.[/quote]
This made me laugh. I would have done the same thing though.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Bald Eagles are actually doing better than they have in a long time, they were taken off the endangered species list a few years back.
Anytime humans build anything it will have an environmental impact. Anyone who argues otherwise left or right is an idiot. I’m sure brietbart has a long history of being anti-oil though correct since they appear to be trying to take this environmental stance right?
I wouldn’t know I don’t often read the far left or far right mouth breathing garbage. [/quote]
H Factor, it is the fact the Obama Administration is fining Oil Companies, but letting off the hook Wind Farms that kill thousands and thousands of birds. It is the double standard that this administration is known for.
[/quote]
Hypocrisy from politicians has been and always will be the norm. This is hardly a “special” hallmark of the Obama administration. Here in conservative central Kansas we have issues of this type of hypocrisy all the time from crazy Sam Brownback and his cronies. Saying one thing and doing another is not a hallmark of only the left. [/quote]
So because every one does it that is ok with you?
[/quote]
No it’s why I don’t support Republicans either. They aren’t different. Was merely pointing out if this administration is “known” for hypocrisy that’s because we already forgot the hypocrisy of W, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, etc and thought Obama was going to be special in that regard.
[quote]H factor wrote:
No it’s why I don’t support Republicans either. They aren’t different. Was merely pointing out if this administration is “known” for hypocrisy that’s because we already forgot the hypocrisy of W, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, etc and thought Obama was going to be special in that regard. [/quote]
Forgot…or forgave…or just plain ignored?
[quote]H factor wrote:
No it’s why I don’t support Republicans either. They aren’t different. Was merely pointing out if this administration is “known” for hypocrisy that’s because we already forgot the hypocrisy of W, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, etc and thought Obama was going to be special in that regard. [/quote]
i have said since the clinton years that both parties are taking us to the same place in a new world order, but using a separate approach. that is the only explanation for the way things are unfolding. (it scares me somewhat in that it appears the presidents and some legislators are knowledgeable we are leaving our constitution behind. it must be one of the greatest secrets they are capable of keeping on par with their methods of gaining wealth)
for the most part politicians are a special breed of fecal matter. they do what they must to continue to gain new positions of power. not all but most.
my perception sees the republicans doing it a little slower and with more common sense and perhaps more character, but nonetheless they are taking us away from the constitution. the majority of the left is just fuckin filthy as shit with little or no regard how their ideas affect us and the rest of the world.
i really believe the public left would accept a 99% failure of all leftist government programs so long as they “perceive” their leftist politicians “striving” to do what they conclude is right. the left allows for too many emotional elements making up government programs that do not work.
but the right does not live in that world of unicorns and endeavor as the end goal. they must have policy and goals reach fruition, otherwise that administration is a big dud.
if you can’t make a person understand there is not an endless supply of cash for programs to help everyone and everything, that person has no reasonable logic and should be pitched out of the voting mechanism that elects legislators.
…go chiefs
I don’t view Republicans as doing it any slower or with anymore common sense. If you like your big government flavored with opposition to gay marriage, opposition to legalized marijuana and handful of other flavoristic things vote Republican. If you like it flavored with allowing gay marriage, more redistribution, and a handful of other flavoristic (it’s fun to invent words) things vote Democrat.
I view both options as losing ones and will not support the two party monster that people think offers such “stark choices” down the road we go. I think most of those differences are largely made up by media or the political parties themselves. Obama ran as the opposite of GWB because GWB was very unpopular. Once elected we got the exact same failed policies and positions just on different things. Let’s try failing on health care instead of failing on the Iraq War.
Government hasn’t shrank. Civil liberties haven’t came back that we lost under GWB. The ruined economy under GWB hasn’t recovered. And yet people want to give Republicans or Democrats the keys again in 2016? People want to make excuses for Obama or Bush based on whether they prefer an elephant or a donkey? Fuck that.
O’er the Land of The Free…and the Home of the…
CCCCCHHHHHHHHIIIIIIEEEEEEEFFFFFSSSSSSSS! Just give me one goddamn playoff win.
i’d go for a third party but it always fails.
it appears to take votes away from only the conservatives and then the same socialist democrats with the least transparent administrations win.
Eighty-one percent of Republicans, 61 percent of independents, and 34 percent of Democrats say the Obama administration is not the most transparent administration in history.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I almost hit a bald eagle last night driving down the highway. He was in flight and moved upwards at the last second. Easily a six foot wingspan.[/quote]
Damn, having never seen something that big I would have pissed my pants thinking it was Mothman.[/quote]
It was kind of a surreal moment. At 75 mph it would’ve made quite a mess if he’d come through the windshield. He flew out of the trees on the side of the road right straight across the highway and “whooshed” up in my headlights with his underside showing right before I would’ve hit him. He took up the entire image in my windshield for a brief second.
It was awe inspiring as well as being a bit spooky. It was twilight and I was driving in a “tunnel” of snow and timber and boom he was suddenly there and gone.[/quote]
We have big seagulls by me. I was going surf casting with my brother many years back and we were driving in his Chevy pickup. This big seagull swoops in front or us while on the Captree bridge, we hit the thing… looked like it was coming through the windshield but it hits right above it.
It was a loud bang. We can’t pull over until we clear the bridge, but once we do, all across the truck cab is nothin’ but feathers, blood and shit. Surprised it didn’t make a dent in the roof. I can’t imagine what hitting an eagle would do.
Rob
“…My perception sees the Republicans doing it a little slower and with more common sense and perhaps more character…”
PLEASE tell me that was meant to be a joke…
Mufasa
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
i’d go for a third party but it always fails.
it appears to take votes away from only the conservatives and then the same socialist democrats with the least transparent administrations win.
[/quote]
Since when? Al Gore would have probably won the presidency if Ralph Nader didn’t run. A third party candidate hasn’t kept the Republicans from winning anything in a long time on the national stage.
Socialist democrats? As opposed to socialist Republicans? Here in Kansas my tax dollars shifted from funding public schools to funding abortion lawsuits. We cut the income tax on high earners so we could increase sales tax on everyone. These are better solutions?
In Missouri Republicans and Democrats had no problem throwing tons of money at Boeing as they got almost everything they could possibly want. If socialism is so bad (which it is) then why is corporate socialism ok?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
A third party candidate hasn’t kept the Republicans from winning anything in a long time on the national stage.
[/quote]
You are wrong. Ross Perot is the reason Bill Clinton was elected president.
[/quote]
Not according to this: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
Anyways the point is moot as at best we have one third party candidate hurting a Democrat and one third party candidate hurting a Republican in only two examples of Presidential races over the last 9 presidential elections. (What I call recent history). C-dog’s point is completely refuted that third party candidates cost Republicans at a high rate and keep Democrats in office more.
A lot of evidence to suggests Perot hurt Clinton as well, not nearly as much to suggest Nader voters would have voted for W. Not to mention the election of 2000 was much closer than 92.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It is very commonly accepted that Perot cost Bush the elder the election of '92. I remember it well.
Now I’m sure there’s always a website that concocts a different theory. There’s contrarian websites and opinions everywhere under the sun including the flat earth society.
[/quote]
I’m sure some people will believe that to the day they die. A lot of analysts and research suggest otherwise. You choose your memory over established data and statistics and that’s fine.
Believe what you want though. Don’t let things like laying out arguments with research get in the way of assertion. It certainly doesn’t stop many on this site. We only need to go back and look at the election polls thread to see how much people value raw data on here. Much more important to believe numbers are biased.