Late November/Early December Observations

Posted Friday, December 4, 2009, at 9:03 AM
Comments
View 19 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • >

    I would argue that you support everything Obama does.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 10:49 AM
  • *

    Just because I support doesn't mean I agree. I give him latitude as the president. I don't agree with his decision for the time being to put more troops into Afghanistan. I could either be a good decision or a bad decision. I'm still going to support his decision, but at the same time I going to voice my concern and dissent over the decision.

    The real world isn't as simple as black and white where if you support the decision you have to agree with it or if you don't support the decision you have to disagree with it. There are many shades of gray. My shade happens to be supporting while disagreeing with the decission.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 12:48 PM
  • *

    I do support everything Obama does. I may not agree with it and there in lies the difference. I support his decision to increase the troop levels but I don't agree with the decision. As I stated in my original blog I believe we need to bring them home.

    The real world is not as simple as black and white where if you support a decision you have to agree with and if you don't support a decision you have to disagree with it. There are many shades of gray and on this one I support the President's decision but I don't agree with it.

    But then again what's wrong with supporting everything the President does? Didn't we just spend the last eight years where the Republicans and conservatives called anyone who didn't support every decision made by Bush as evil, un American, and America haters?

    Aren't these same people now using the same terms for anyone who doesn't cowtow to everything the right wants to do in this country? I remember a candidate in last years race that called people who agreed with everything they said as "Real Americans" which left roughly 80% of the population in the lurch of being I guess fake Americans.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 12:59 PM
  • *

    Sorry for the double post all. My original post wasn't showing up for some reason so I typed it again and added some, so now I have two posts saying the same thing, essentially.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 1:00 PM
  • Snow in Houston today. The earliest on record. The first time in recorded history Houston has had snow two years in a row. Snowed in 1974 and 2002. Now 2008 and 2009.

    If Global warming were real you would not expect this sort of thing.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 4:38 PM
  • *

    Actually quite the opposite wallis. This is exactly something you would expect. Global Warming isn't solely responsible for higher temperatures.

    Global Warming is responsible for wilder weather extremes. It's the same debate from hurricane season. It doesn't cause more hurricanes it causes more powerful hurricanes. It doesn't cause snow only in the north it creates more snow. It also cause generally more precipitation. The fact that Houston has now gotten measurable snow two years in a row fits into Global Warming perfectly. It is a weather extreme.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 5:55 PM
  • *

    wallis if global warming is not occurring then how do you explain for the first time in recorded history man being able to pass through the the arctic year round now because the ice is receding?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, at 5:30 AM
  • http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

    Just returned from San Fran. Attended the Rockets/Golden State game. This counts as first of December.

    http://blogs.chron.com/socialclimbing/20...

    I attend many Rockets West Coast games. I spend 20 days a year in NoCal and 30 days a year in SoCal. Most of the people who comment on this blog needs to travel more.

    Right winger you are incorrect in your data. I am an engineer. Send me an email and we can discuss. My website is below.

    www.extex.net

    I will crunch numbers with you all day long. Ed Moran is also a meterologist.

    We will select our Coach of the year nominees on Tuesday. Nebraska needs a big win for Bo to be considered.

    http://mccookgazette.mycapture.com/mycap...

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, at 10:04 AM
  • *

    wallis let me get this straight. You are challenged on your claim that global warming isn't real. Your response is to completely change the subject to syphilis, NBA, engineering, and Coach of the Year? With just a small mention of weather not climate?

    Okay then, as I've said many times before, back on topic please.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, at 12:50 PM
  • Be careful wallismarsh, you changed the subject, a clear violation of mike's rules. Only he can do that.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, at 10:37 PM
  • *

    Did anything you said in the Chunky have anything to do with the topic?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, at 11:34 PM
  • Good point about troop levels in Afghanistan. Many people on the right are totally oblivious to this fact. They were all up in arms after General Stanley McChrystal's three options were leaked to the media because Obama didn't "immediately support the general on the ground with his request of 40,000 additional troops". Completely overshadowed in the argument was that the 40,000 figure was only one of the hypothetical scenarios, of three total, proposed by the general. The less you know the more attention you get on the "conservative" side of the argument.

    There is also talk that the Taliban will simply "wait us out" until our surge is over. That may be the case. But if the Taliban do wait us out and in the meantime we get a competent Afghan army and police structure, the local population will get used to the lower levels of violence. Hopefully, when the Taliban get excited enough and attack, they are repelled by a strong Afghan army. Hopefully the local population, getting used to not having to deal with bombings and violence every day, will join the Afghan army and kick the Taliban out. Hopefully, the neighboring country of Pakistan will keep up its offensive and not give the Taliban/Al Qaeda a backdoor safety net. These are all hopeful scenarios, and I truly hope that things do work out over there. However, for these right wingers that don't want any timelines on American occupation of Afghanistan, the reality is that the US military cannot continue to indefinitely occupy the country. We are not an imperialist country and our Armed Forces are not geared to long term occupation and nation building.

    The whole scandal behind the climate change emails is interesting. Inside the climatology community, the debate over whether global warming is actually happening and if human activities are a major factor (not the only factor) is virtually nonexistent. It is a widely accepted fact. According to people like Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma senator and leading climate change skeptic, these emails by a few misguided scientists totally prove that global warming is a false science perpetrated by lying politicians and scientists. Trouble is, if we use that same yardstick to decide if things are true, or if a group of people is lying to the public, we would have virtually no institutions left in the USA. Every time a cop excessively beats individual or a crooked detective plants evidence on a suspect, we would have to question the integrity of all cops. Every time a crooked banker or Wall Street trader committed a crime and pilfered millions of dollars from people, we would have to question the merits of capitalism. The ironic thing here is that Jim Inhofe isn't a climatologist. He isn't even a scientist or an engineer. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree at the age of 38. Before entering politics he was a real estate developer, and then became president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company, which was liquidated on his watch.

    Who better to question the validity of science than this guy? The less you know the more attention you get on the "conservative" side of the argument.

    -- Posted by jeffhager on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, at 1:08 AM
  • Mike,

    I'm still waiting for some of these HATERS and BASHERS to volunteer their back yard for Al Qaeda to deliver one of Pakistan's nuclear warheads.

    Until someone can absolutely prove ability to prevent Al Qaeda and the Taliban from grabbing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- I support this administrations decisions.

    DECISIONS BASED upon full information, discussion and debate among all responsible parties.

    Unlike DubYah's original decision to go into Iraq, because he though Sadaam hired killers to go after Poppa Bush.

    Early Bush administration officials have revealed the details of DubYah planning to go after Sadaam -- BEFORE THE YEAR 2000.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, at 6:37 AM
  • Here's a December tidbit you missed Mike,

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fist...

    Do you still say there are no radicals in education?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 9:07 AM
  • *

    Mike I have a couple of questions:

    I may be reading too much into your statements but let me see if I have this clear. You support everything the President does although you don't necessarily agree with him? If that is so did you support everything Bush did without agreeing? If not how do you explain the apparent hypocrisy?

    When you lambaste the Bush administration for leaving the job undone in Afghanistan, perhaps rightly, why then do you call for the Taliban and Al-Qaida to be unhingered in the region? Do you think America will be safer with our troops home waiting for another attack than in the field in Afghanistan?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 11:13 AM
  • *

    CPB, first of all I have never made the claim that there aren't radicals in education. There are, just like any profession. But just like any profession their numbers are in the vast minority and do not represent the vast majority of hard working great educators in the system whose only goal is to educate. So to answer your question, I never said there weren't radicals and to suggest that I did is either a misunderstanding on your part or complete fabrication on your part.

    SWNebr, I do not support everything a president does. The reason I support Obama on this decision is because he took the time to make his decision instead of shooting first and asking questions later. I don't agree with the troop escalation but if the end game is capturing or killing Osama then I am supportive.

    I do happen to believe that America will be safer with our troops home. We can't effectively defend our country if the vast majority of our troops are somewhere else. The Taliban and Al-Qaida have been unhingered in the region since we neglected the region to attack Iraq.

    I hear a lot of attacks on Clinton based on an unsubstantiated claim that a country offered to capture Osama for us late in his term, but the same people that lob these attacks at Clinton seem uncaring that we had Osama cornered several times in Afghanistan/Pakistan but didn't have the resources to capture or kill him because Bush sent those resources to Iraq.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 12:15 PM
  • *

    Mike,

    So you don't support everything A president does only everything THIS president does? Ok I had some difficulty understanding your point especially when you later made the comment about people supporting everything Bush did. That however raises the question of hypocrisy again in my eyes.

    How can you mock the complete supporters of Bush while proclaiming yourself a complete supporter of Obama without it being hypocrisy?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 3:00 PM
  • On the issue of Sudan offering up Osama Bin Laden, I have read (and I encourage others to do so as well) "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. He makes this claim based on an interview with Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa. He claims this to be fact and, judging by the accuracy of the numerous facts presented in this book, it is possible. However, President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clark deny any offer was ever made. The 9/11 Commission also rejects this scenario.

    It appears that even if it was true that the US did not have any hard evidence to connect him to harming American citizens at the time. You can read more at the following site.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/di...

    Again, "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright is a fascinating book and well worth the read.

    -- Posted by jeffhager on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 3:31 PM
  • *

    SWNebr if I left you with the impression that I have supported every decision that Obama has made then I apologize. I have not supported everything he has done.

    My original point however on supporting President Bush was not disparaging those that supported everything he did it was disparaging those that supported everything Bush did and then calling those who didn't un American, anti-America, haters of America, and my personal favorite "those openly rooting for America to fail".

    If you support everything a president does then that's your choice I have no qualms with it. It's when you turn around and try to force other people to support what you support that I have a problem with.

    I don't care if people support President Obama it's when they have previously stated (in this case anyways) that they want more troops in Afghanistan and when Obama promises more troops they still complain that bugs me. Those people continue to prove that no matter what this president does, even when they support it before hand, they will criticize him for it. But you will never see me type or hear me call these people what they called me and others when we didn't fully support Bush 100% with no questions asked.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 5:31 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: