All it did was twist your comment exactly the way you twisted mine.
I was learning from the master, and that would be you.
I followed your methodology, step by step..

IIf you don't like your own gimmickry, stop using it.

Where, and in what way, did I imply you had no right to express your opinion? That is the realm of the Left, which loves to pass PC speech laws. Seems you also love to equate criticism with efforts to quash, another leftist tactic.

I fully support your right to expound your opinions, no matter how ill conceived, simplistic, unsupported and poorly thought out they may be. I also reserve my right to point that out to you.

And my point, which should have been obvious, even to you. is that since some of our pollution has been collecting the atmosphere and in oceans for a long time, while China's contribution is relatively recent, we bear some responsibility..

If you choose to translate an acknwledgement of responsbility as an attack, that's your problem. As a matter of fact, yours is an attitude that would fit in nicely in authoritarian China, where, conveniently for you the regime can not be questioned, criticized or referred to in other than glowing terms.
Oh, oh! It sounds as if you are holding up China as a shining example while American democracy and freedom of speech must be attacked at any cost.

The Right is now attacking America. Lordy, lordy, the lengths some people will go to.

GWB brought in leaders from both branches of the government and both parties and informed them of the fisa wiretaps. The democrats remained silent for one overwhelming reason. The NSA wiretaps were working marvelously well. They were overseen and they were administered.

Barak Obama knows this. He voted for the Fisa bill because he wants that ability to SPY ON YOU when hes in the big chair. Oh my GAWD. Say it aint so Obama.

My point, which should have been obvious, even to you, was that we are not the Great Satan of polluters. We do have stronger anti-pollution laws than we are given credit for.

But America must be attacked, and countries like China and India praised, and damn the facts that do not support that position.

Sorry, but it the same symptom shown by the Left cognoscenti who jet around in private planes en mass, to tell us to reduce our global carbon use. It is Al Gore living an energy hog of a house, while Bush lives in an environmentally friendly one, but Gore is the f'ing Messiah of the Green movement, and Bush a pariah.

It is the hypocrisy in so many ways and in so many different areas from the Left (and not that the Right isn't full of them, too, in their own areas like 'Family Values' and others) that galls me.

But this board has more than enough people pointing out the foibles of the Right, and so few here willing to admit those on the Left.

If strategy is not important, then why participate in politics? or sports? or in career planning? or anything?

Does anone play chess just for the fun of moving game pieces around, without planning moves for winning?

This is an attempt to have Bush's 'mission accomplished' moment,with no follow up strategy for what to do next. Let's say Obama had voted your way. The bill would still not be defeated, because the votes weren't there. What would have been the Dem strategy after that,as they are pounded daily for being weak on security in addition to every other charge from being a secret Muslim jihadi to being an elitist? ?
Oh, I forgot. It doesn't matter who wins. As long as the progressives have their moment of righteousness.

Well, it matters to me, and I've been busy advocating for changes to the FISA bill, out of the limelight, in ways that won't defeat my primary goal of seeing a Democrat in the WH. That's called pragmatism and strategy, things you obviously didain.

it's a cheap shot, btw, to accuse everyone who diagrees with you of bieng guilty of hero worship. He is not my hero. He does not always speak for me. But i learn from him and I prioritize. Sometimes I even put the good of the country ahead of my own preferences.
That's also pragmatism. it's also an expression of principles.

Whatever Obama's motives, he did the wrong thing here. You can be for him without excusing everything he does.

And Clinton deserves some credit for voting the way she did, regardless of her motives.

I am baffled by the way people think they must always rationalize every move of a politician they support and damn any move by one they don't. You can support Obama without ascribing to the Church of Barack.

Political expediency and strategy are not good reasons for the Dems who sold out to have waived their constitutional duty to act as a check on the executive — whether the executive be George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or John McCain.

This advantage-attack line failed to convince the voters in 2006, don't forget.

I absolutely agree.
I must say, I think the Progressives who are trumpeting HRC's “taking a principled stand” on FISA are crazier than a bag full of ferrets!
This is HRC we are talking about. Get real.

I am not a supporter of Sen. Obama . . . but he made a brilliant political move on the FISA vote. He could easily have ducked out, citing campaign commitments.

But with a single vote, he undermined a decades-old GOP advantage/attack line: Democrats are weak on defence.

Increasingly I wonder whether the jokes about Progressive Democrats being determined to lose the election are true.

Is your aim to find a reason why the US should do nothing?

This is not a US problem. it is a global problem. Countries like China argue that since the US has been polluting freely in order to advance its interests, ithey now deserve their chance to do the same.
The result is one big global headache.

The US, by thinking globally, could lead by example, In demonstrating how poluution can be successfully combated, we could even make handsome profits by selling the technology to countries like china. We would be a good blobal citizen while benefitting ourselves in the process.

China, in conrast to some in the US, is quite cognizant of the problems arising from pollution and the dangers of climate change. It is proactively pursuing means to attack these problems. i would rather not see eery other country beat us to the punch in helping China with its acklowledged problems.

What I find funny are the lengths of denial to which some people will resort.

The biggest cudgel Republican use aginst Democrats is national securiyy. It's not fair, and it's a big lie, but too large a sector of the public have swallowd this talking point to ignore – especially in the middle of an election. Had Obama voted against the bill, McCain and freinds would have been all over Obama about it from now on. Obama, pragmatically, removed one talking point from McCain's arsenal.

Hillary's 'no' vote and her explanatory statement are facetious. Were she the candidate, she would have done exactly the same. IMO, she would have done so with fewer reservations, judging from her previous hawkish and pro-executive power voting record. Hillary is a savvy politician who is always pro Hillary, above all else, and this case is no different..

What troubles me about the executive powers granted in the FISA bill, are not the powers, per se (in an emegency, they might be necessary). What troubles me are executive powers without oversight. I think there needs to be institutional, ongoing oversight, not dependent on irregular congressional hearings.
That's something that can be rectified, and that's something that advocates should focus on AS SOON AS OBAMA IS SWORN IN. .I'm not even waiting for Nov., I've been contacting the Obama website and all my congressional representatives for about a week now.
It's private, and if enough people do it, we might well be heard. If not, a hullaballoo can always be raised at a propitious time..

I think telcom immunity should be handled in the same way. Like the question of impeachment, it shouldn't be about punishemnt but, pragamtically,about prevention- for the sake of the future.

FISA, like all laws, can be modified, reformed or replaced. Like Obama says, about negotiations with Iran, it should be done at a time of the Dem's pragamtic choosing.

Top 10 Worst Polluted Places in the World:
1. Chernobyl, Ukraine
2. Dzerzhinsk, Russia
3. Haina, Dominican Republic
4. Kabwe, Zambia
5. La Oroya, Peru
6. Linfen, China
7. Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
8. Norilsk, Russia
9. Ranipet, India
10. Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia

MOST DANGEROUSLY POLLUTED CITIES
Particulate
RANK CITY COUNTRY Matter
—- ——— ————- ———–

1 Cairo Egypt 169
2 Delhi India 150
3 Kolkata India 128
4 Tianjin China 125
5 Chongqing China 123
7 Kampur India 109
8 Lucknow India 109
9 Jakarta Indonesia 104
10 Shenyang China 101
11 Zhengzhou China 97
12 Jinan China 94
13 Lanzhou China 91
14 Taiyuan China 88
16 Beijing China 89
17 Chengdu China 86
18 Ahmadabad India 83
19 Anshan China 82
20 Wuhan China 79

Environmental Performance Index* 2008
39 United States 81.0 (out of 149 countries)

Rank Country Tons of Carbon per person
1 Qatar 20.05
2 United Arab Emirates 10.36
3 Kuwait 8.69
4 Guam 7.76
5 Bahrain 7.66
6 Singapore 7.04
7 United States 6.04
8 Luxembourg 5.69
9 Brunei 5.28
10 Australia 5.19

Rather than call his ideology compromise, I think it is more accurate to call it inclusive. It's a pragmatist's recognition that singificant numbers of people with different convictions have to be tolerably comfortable with prevailing conditions in order to have a stable society and successful governance.

That's the exact opposite of Rovian. it's what being different means.

Reminders for those who didn't listen: different, unity, together, no more red/blue state.