• The blurb about not accepting material is just a form letter.  ABC sends it out as well.  They get people sending them story ideas and then potentially get sued later on when a story happens to be similar to one sent them on some random email.  Its legal protection and it wasnt directed directly at you.  In fact they do the same sort of think with resumes.  you cant send them a resume in hopes of finding a job there.  You have to respond directly to job offers through hed hunting firms.  I seriously doubt you got more than a form letter.  If you did get more they still likely have that blurb as their signature to go out on all correspondence.  

  • As the guide said there is some funky things going on in Yellowstone lake right now that could indicate increased activity towards a future explosive event.  Of course the lake, I believe, is the center of the old volcanic explosion.  If it pops we basically all die from the inability to grow food due to ash contaminating the soil, the cold weather resulting from the sun being blocked, etc.  It would be a "We're all kinda fucked" moment.  I have to hope that at some point humanity will decide to prepare for an event as cataclysmic as this, it may be another 50000 years but to prepare for such a thing would be beneficial in many other situations.  Of course I won't be around, and so I suspect no one really cares.  Then again they couldn't get Katrina right and they knew that was going to happen much sooner.  Its really a good place for Cheney to have his undisclosed location.  He retreated there shortly after his hunting incident.  I was amazed that after four days in the wilderness they were still talking about Cheney and Muslims rioting.  Gratend Muslims were still rioting so it makes sense that it was still in the news, but Cheney must have really fowled up to take up a whole week of news coverage.

  • sorry, meant as a reply to a comment not a new comment.

  • Well afraid is my word.  The guide that I talked to specifically thought Dems were responsible for the threat to his business.  I don't believe that but I have no evidence either way.  Just suspicion.  I personally can't imagine that being true.  I believe, at least this administration, will use the term "small business" to say they are out to protect small business when in fact they are out to protect and advance big business and their elite friends.  It would not surprise me if this administration would intentionally put some people in harms way, twist the, to see a different enemy, and then rally for their votes.  but thats a lot of work to go through for votes.  And yes, I do also believe that preachers are out to promote Republicans right now.  I don't know about Wyoming or Montana.   Im Agnostic so attending church services is not likely.  But I do have friends here in Florida that have come away with some pretty strange ideas based on their churches and I see the news too talking about preachers specifically advancing Rep candidates.

    As for hiding behind trees, I think that pretty dangerous since Republicans are all too eager to cut them all down to prevent forest fires.  I thought it humerous when the guide showed us the fire damage in Yellowstone and then pointed out that this is a good thing.  Fire breeds life in the forest.  In fact certain seeds only germinate after being popped by fire.  So he pointd to the plentifull supply of new growth that in a hundred years or so will be a vibrant forest afain.  And then I remembered back when Bush was giving a speech around the time of all the fires, noting on one side of a road was a forest and the other side was a burnt, seemingly, wasteland.  But of course that was false.  I dont know how many people fell for it.  But fire is a good thing in a forest (as long as its natural),  All it did was give Bush a reason to promote logging and clear cutting as some odd way to protect forests.  Here is this guide that is clearly a Republican (though I have to believe given how nice and knwoledgable he was that he is an easy convert) that is specifically countering the argument of the President.

  • Well afraid is my word.  The guide that I talked to specifically thought Dems were responsible for the threat to his business.  I don't believe that but I have no evidence either way.  Just suspicion.  I personally can't imagine that being true.  I believe, at least this administration, will use the term "small business" to say they are out to protect small business when in fact they are out to protect and advance big business and their elite friends.  It would not surprise me if this administration would intentionally put some people in harms way, twist the, to see a different enemy, and then rally for their votes.  but thats a lot of work to go through for votes.  And yes, I do also believe that preachers are out to promote Republicans right now.  I don't know about Wyoming or Montana.   Im Agnostic so attending church services is not likely.  But I do have friends here in Florida that have come away with some pretty strange ideas based on their churches and I see the news too talking about preachers specifically advancing Rep candidates.

    As for hiding behind trees, I think that pretty dangerous since Republicans are all too eager to cut them all down to prevent forest fires.  I thought it humerous when the guide showed us the fire damage in Yellowstone and then pointed out that this is a good thing.  Fire breeds life in the forest.  In fact certain seeds only germinate after being popped by fire.  So he pointd to the plentifull supply of new growth that in a hundred years or so will be a vibrant forest afain.  And then I remembered back when Bush was giving a speech around the time of all the fires, noting on one side of a road was a forest and the other side was a burnt, seemingly, wasteland.  But of course that was false.  I dont know how many people fell for it.  But fire is a good thing in a forest (as long as its natural),  All it did was give Bush a reason to promote logging and clear cutting as some odd way to protect forests.  Here is this guide that is clearly a Republican (though I have to believe given how nice and knwoledgable he was that he is an easy convert) that is specifically countering the argument of the President.

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 8 years ago
    That quote of him saying it was just a piece of paper is not, from what I understand, from a reliable source.  You took that from the capitol hill blue site or the post referring to it.  Or do you know another source, preferrably named source that was there when those words were said.  It would be great/horrible if it were true but unless you have more than an unnamed source its not good to spread that around.

    Where does the quote "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens.." come from? (if you know the source, if you don't thats fine)  Being an Atheist it intrigues me.  I'm serious, not trying to be critical, I am interested.

    Beyond this I like your tone.  He deserves nothing less that scorn.

  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    He sounds like a great guy.  I love that he worked for Clark.  I have to think that somehow that shared service might bring shared values.  No guarantee of that but one never knows.  Its great that he has faced both service and the personal fight against cancer (not that its great he hasd cancer specifically you understand).  It will bring him closer to the people he will hopefully serve.  That, however, does not mean that he should go to the press and complain that so and so used "boys and girls" vs "men and women".  Fight someone on real issues and not petty mud slinging.  Do you want him to come off as a whiner?  I suspect you don't.  You appear to like the guy.  I don't want him to come off that way either.  He has an excellent biography but thats not why I would tell him to not use that tactic.  Its, and you might find this humorous, lame.  In my opinion of course.  
  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    You say I'm abrasive?  Your kidding right?  I say again, no one, no one deserves carte blanche support simply because they have a military background.  That appears to be your argument.  Bush has a military background and does not deserve respect.   It is not disrespect to disagree with someone.  It is not disrespectful to say so either.  You agree with that correct?  If I think someone is going to go off and make a fairly silly argument to the press because someone used the term "boys and girls" vs "men and women", I'm going to tell them they should consider another course of action.  There are much better things to discuss.  It doesn't serve his interests to come off looking silly and its better that he hear it here than somewhere else.  Now you clearly disagree and I'm sure others do as well.  But don't try to bully me into keeping quiet.  It won't work and just makes you look bad in the process.  Rise above it.
  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    Let Eric Massa take care of himself.  I suspect he is capable of such a task and doesn't need thugs running around picking fights on his behalf.  Unless you think he is incapable of defending himself against someone that has not attacked him or disrespected him.  If he finds that any of my statements are somehow disrespectful he is welcome to say so.  I invite it.  I'm not particular concerned about your opinion, but I love seeing you show your colors.  It helps others that read this thread when they analyze your future posts.  
  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    I don't think it disrespectfull to say that taking an argument like that to the press is petty.  It will not prove successful and anyone that sees him do it will think he is being ridiculous.  I said simply, pick another fight or pick another point on which to take the current fight.  In no way was I disrespectful.  I will not however show someone respect, in your opinion I apparently need to worship his every word, simply because they have military service in their background.  It is not disrespectful to not agree with a position or to voice that disagreement.  You are the one that has gotten childish.  It is not in your disagreement but in your manner.  

    "This is not your personal chat session."

    Do you listen to yourself?

  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    You are a fool.  Please keep responding and let everyone know it.
  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    Time in the military doesn't make your opinion right or even necessarily carry more weight.  My point was valid and you don't know how to use the ratings system.  
  • on a comment on Mccain sells out over 8 years ago
    Was the campaign finance reform bill suppose to solve the disparity of funds betwene Reps and Dems?  I don't think so.  If someone really wants to solve that problem then campaigns should be publicly funded with a set amount for each candidate (and I would have to say a set amount of free time on television used wisely by the politician in the way he or she sees fit).  But that wont happen.
  • on a comment on The Real Energy Problem over 8 years ago
    To fight for them to be called "men and women" vs "boys and girls" will be fairly petty.  We are all boys and girls, male and female, men and women.  The terms can be used fairly interchangeably. I don't think it inappropriate to say boys and girls, especially if his context was to refer to them more as "our children".  Each soldier is certainly someones child.  Someone's little boy or girl regardless of the weapon they may have in hand or the scars they may carry.  Pick another fight or another point to fight about.
  • on a comment on Open Thread over 8 years ago
    I don't believe Jackson has a chance at an Oscar for this.  Its a great movie but it is missing some things.  Also, and it makes no real sense, but he has had his recognition for a while.  I intend on seeing BrokeBack Mt.  I hear good things.  Its just hard to think about watching another sad movie.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads