birdog1960

we went to war while a very pro oil and domestic exploration man was in power. could it be that he didn't feel estimted domestic reserves were large enough for future domestic needs?

another thought...look at a hyundai genesis coupe. seems to meet your criteria.

one of the administration's stated goals in the war was democratization of the middle east. (funny to read this article through the retrospectascope- bit like the victory celebration on the aircraft carrier). but what was the goal of this? to free the oppressed peoples in the region from their horrible overlords? or to gain more influence/control in the largest oil producing region in the world? btw, "colonize" is your word not mine.

while i don't accept being caught out and i certainly don't accept that my beliefs in anyway resemble fascists, even if you are convinced that i was or that they do, you have a single example to point to. examples of insults for arguments by you are almost innumerable.

did i insult him? did you? is he undeserving of debate? does he post to be ignored?

using insults as a debate tactic is for the weak minded. that's more an indication of being slow than my disagreeing with your narrow definitions of rather arbitrary, ill defined and frankly unimportant, political ideologies.

is there any sane person who thinks that the iraq war wasn't a colossal failure? the exploitation didn't happen cuz, surprise, surprise, it didn't work.

so you're not arguing that things really aren't gray and that things are black and white? you're saying that recognizing that things are gray doesn't fit your political beliefs. and you're arguing that moral superiority is not something humans should endeavor to achieve? how bout moral mediocrity?...i'd settle for that.

sure, to believe in that ideal (the good of the many, not your misapplied paraphrase) necessarily means you're a nazi or espouse fascism. geez, that really deserves a forehead slap. seems, at its extremes more in line with another german political philosopher whom the nazi's despised. yet, you see a striking similarity. uh huh...it's liberals who are the dualists, seeing life in black and white and never gray.

that's a fundamental difference. i think the good of the many trumps the good of the few, even if at times actions that benefit the many may not be advantageous to me personally.

belittling an idea doesn't make it untrue. both, at their core, most importantly,want things their own way.

can't really say i know them but how bout cheney and bush...isn't that what iraq really about? it just didn't work out so well.

i suspect there are many more like you

really? fictitious? you don't know any conservatives fitting these descriptions? I do. and yes, they are oversimplifications....i wasn't intending a poli sci thesis on this subject.

nancy and obama are willing to avidly support legislation that will lessen their wealth as are many (most) liberals for the purpose of advancing their beliefs. conservatives generally are not in my experience. if they give, they're usually expecting to get more back. Corzine? don't know....maybe he didn't think he could become gov as a repub? what is it the propagandists say? rino? corzine seems to me the dem equivalent.

i think it's a pretty good list...just not broken down into conservative subtypes, as it should be. some subtypes: fundamentalist christian and other religious zealots the wealthy who want assurances that they stay that way and the power to influence legislation to that end the wannabe wealthy, who believe it's just a matter of time cuz they've figured out the game, so don't change the rules now. the angry...at "people getting more than they deserve" or getting, what they perceive to be preferential treatment from the govt the hawks, who believe that america and americans have the power to take what it wants and should do so the disenfranchised, who believe their lot is a result of unfair foreign competition and failed govt policy experiments just a few and far from all inclusive, but probably covers the list presented in the initial post.

i've always been told by car people to avoid the first year of a brand new model. that said, my last 2 cars, an inifinit g35 coupe and an audi tt were both first model years and they were both great cars, although the tt was a bit buggy in the electronics. when shopping for these cars, i found the same thing as you are now finding: nobody had them! there was a sold tt at the dealership that i test drove and then ordered mine. i drove a g35 sedan before ordering the coupe. interestingly, i went to a nissan dealer to drive a 350z (which was out earlier than the similar g35) and the dealer wanted a deposit before i test drove it. i told him to *($% himself and emailed nissan with no known results except that i felt better. the infiniti dealer, on the other hand, couldn't have been more helpful and accommodating, driving my car the 100 miles from his dealership to my office after it arrived. anyway, if i were you, i'd probably wait til the next model year when there should be more selection, a longer track record and possibly a better deal.

all very useful suggestions but this is the best...the whole thing really is like a greek tragedy.

the filthy creatures also can give you a nice case of salmonella poisoning....flush the sucker.

imho she has very good taste (maybe a bit more modern than mine) but this was just so insensitive...and shes a Bills fan (supposedly).

we're painting the inside of my house and my wife picked out all the colors, of course. i come home yesterday to find our bedroom a soft light orange and the adjoining bathroom light blue...almost an exact match with the dolfags colors! i'm too cheap to have it all repainted (and believe it or not, it looks pretty good). will flying a bills flag outside the room make amends? thanks goodness, the rest of the house is in different colors.

wow, are you drinking absynthe? maybe moonshine?

geez, you're right what was i thinking....idealistically believing (or wanting to believe) that even big oil execs give a sheit about the continued existence of the world as we know it or of mankind? who would ever guess that they would deliberately misinform the media about the severity of the oil spill in the gulf? profits are clearly infinitely more important. of course they should expend all their considerable energy and intellect maximizing that. what an idiot! i'll try to be more cynical. i'm sure i'll be happier that way.

there you go again with your assumptions...believe it or not i had some other stuff to do. like buying led bulbs to replace incandescents for earth day. but i digress. might it be that big oil knows that sooner or later it will become obvious that global warming is real? might they then be able to say "look, we've been funding research on this for years!" all the while continuing high profit generating current practices? this approach covers all the bases. if the data obtained disproves global warming they (and all of us) win. if it proves it, they still look good and i'm betting that they're betting on the latter scenario.