The Respectfully Republican Conversation

My point in mentioning the temperate rainforests was in reference to your question of us having rainforests. That's all.

57 states? Bahahahaha.  Al Gore invented the internet....I had forgotten about that one.  Bahahahahahaha...  Oh goodness I needed a good laugh this morning.

Go Hillary!!!!!!

Hey ((((Shokk)))), I had to check out this thread to see what I was missing.  You go girl!

Deb.......BRAVO.........does anyone remember maybe about 10 years ago when a couple of teenagers climbed into the polar bear exhibit at the Brooklyn Zoo and got eaten alive......Polar bears are dangerous..........Shokk

Did anyone see the special a few years back on the migration path of polar bears in the Yukon?  If you saw that, you would know exactly how dangerous they really are.  There was a town that was in the middle of the migration path, every year around Halloween, they had such troubles woth the polar bears  - breaking into people's homes, killing their pets, threatening the people themselves.  I have great respect for polar bears, but I never want to meet one up close.

Deb, I like your "soap box."  Here's the freaking problem....even McCain wants to "preserve" Anwar.  He said he's an environmentalist.  Bush has been talking a lot about drilling in ANWR and other places. 

I heard Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday speak with Fox News about voting on drilling there.  Didn't pass.

Do these idiots who oppose drilling for oil ANYWHERE know how it's hurting the "little" people?  Or, are they just too POLITICALLY CORRECT to understand that we cannot afford to fill up our cars, trucks..groceries are going up, everything's going up?  Do they really freaking care!!!?  It costs us at least $100 just to go see our daughters.  Let's blame EVERYTHING on Bush.  I thought Pelosi was supposed to take care of the high prices we were paying at the pumps when the dems took over (then it was $2and something for gas)  And our insurance changed BIG TIME, and it all we can do to buy our meds until we reach our $2200 deductible (getting ready to send new Arimidex prescription off to the tune of $743! for pete's sake)!  To hell with us LITTLE PEONS!

We can't wait for alternative fuel!  And you know what!?  If someone from the repub party calls me for a donation I SAY NO!  They've got more freaking money than we do!  Look at Hillary (I know, she's a dem).  She's spent, I believe, $20,000,000 of her own!  In fact, I don't answer "800" numbers anymore.  The only reason I answser "unknown" number is because it could be my long lost, gypsy daughter who will soon no longer be a gypsy!   She's coming home!  Oops!  Sorry, I got off subject.  Actually, I should be on the "bitch, moan, groan" thread.

If your interested watch this.  I'll post it "over there" later.  LOL  It's a little lesson on ANWR. 

http://www.anwr.org/flash.htm

Now, I know most people don't like Rush.  However, I just found this interview with Kay Baily.  I believe there's more than one page, but I'm only posting one. 

I'll step down for now. 

http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/Senator-Kay-Bailey-Hutchison-on-ANWR-Ethanol.php

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on ANWR, Ethanol  

In a recent interview, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) discussed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible drilling. "ANWR is an area the size of the state of South Carolina.  The part that would be drilled is an area the size of JFK airport or Washington National Airport or Dallas Love Field," said Sen. Hutchision.  "It's an area the size of an airport because the new technology allows us to drill underground for just hundreds of yards and you don't have to have a lot of wells to drill anymore." 

Here is more of Sen. Hutchison's interview with Rush Limbaugh:

SEN. HUTCHISON: But they're not acknowledging that.  The people of Alaska want this. They have had referenda. They want the jobs, they want the economic security, and they know it won't hurt the environment."Yet we cannot get a bill through Congress that would allow drilling in that small part of ANWR.  These are the kinds of things that just don't make sense when the price of gasoline is so high.

RUSH:  Ah, sadly, they do make sense if you understand Democrats.  I know you do.  We're talking, by the way, with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas.  Now, yesterday the president made a presentation on energy and said much of the same thing you just said here; and Senator Schumer from New York went out and responded to it and said, "If we started drilling in ANWR today we wouldn't have a drop of oil for ten years."  Well, of course, Bill Clinton vetoed the first time this came up in 1994. We could have been at this four years according to his ten-year plan.  He also said something that mathematically doesn't make sense.  He said that this million barrels a day that ANWR would produce would reduce the price of gasoline or oil -- I forget which one he specified -- by a penny.  Well, that's absurd, because when the price of oil... When we lose a million barrels in the supply, does the price only go up a penny?  They're using scare tactics, here.  We need resources. We need our oil, and you got Schumer out there saying, "No, it wouldn't matter," and they're misleading people thinking that there's a substitute for it right around the corner when there's not.

SEN. HUTCHISON:  You're right.  When President Clinton vetoed ANWR, we would have been producing. But I totally disagree and reject the argument that it would be ten years.  We could start drilling in ANWR, and I think within a couple of years you would start seeing the results. But more important, if we were drilling there and people in the market, in OPEC -- if the people who are hedging in the market for futures in this oil industry. If we were drilling in ANWR -- do you think the price would stay up?  No. People would know that there would be an availability.  They would know that there was going to be a real difference in what we could produce.  The one million barrels a day is the amount we import from Saudi Arabia every day.  That's what we would be getting from our own resources and control it; and that doesn't count what we could do if we were drilling off the Atlantic and the Pacific, in environmental safe ways.  That's the key.  If we took control of our own destiny, we could become energy independent and self-sufficient and not depend on places that don't like us very much like Venezuela.

RUSH:  All this makes so much sense that we out here don't understand why it isn't done.  We understand the politics of liberalism and the Democrats trying to create as much chaos as they can for reelection purposes in November, but they consistently oppose this kind of independence; despite the fact they're the ones claiming and whining and moaning how dependent we are. But they're the ones that always stand in the way of becoming energy independent, and there has to be more to it than just their own desire for electability.  I think it's a little bit more hideous than that.  I know you wouldn't want to comment on that.  But this is really serious stuff to all of us.  The price of everything going up all based on the price of oil and energy. It's all related.  There's an ideological group out there, the environmentalists, who are get... They're the only ones that are happy with this. They're getting everything they want out of this.  Of course, the people they donate to and vote for are thus happy about it, too; and the country, in the meantime, suffers.

SEN. HUTCHISON:  Well, Rush, if we would do this -- if the Democrats and if the people understand this issue enough to force them. If we could open refineries, make it easier to do so; open nuclear power plants, which is the cleanest form of energy at the best, most efficient prices that we could possibly produce it; and drill in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and deep drilling in the Gulf Coast, we could be a country that doesn't have to rely on anyone else.  I think we need to make this an issue in this election.

RUSH:  I couldn't agree more.

SEN. HUTCHISON:  Don't let the Democrats get by with saying, "Oh, it's just terrible that the price of gasoline is high, and it's the president's fault."  It is not the president's fault.  It's the Democrats in Congress who continue to keep us from drilling in ANWR. We had almost enough, 60 votes, to pass that last time.  We were one vote short, couldn't get it, and so here we are again.

Read the whole interview here: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on ANWR, Ethanol

AND OH, WE KNOW ABOUT BEARS!  Deb I still think about your pet chickens who provided you with fresh eggs. 

Shirley



 

I think the link at the bottom of the article is the entire interview.  I haven't read it yet.

Shirley

Gotta tell you--Johnny boy (that's what McCain's wife calls him) better wake up and soon--and get real.  Obama is quite willing to let the different Soros groups and the DNC run vicious attacks against McCain while he  runs a "different kind of campaign".  

Now that they are about done destroying Hillary they can totally focus on McCain.

McCain cannot go policing every ad in every local race in America by every group know to man---that is insane and plays right into Obama's hands.---Johnny boy get real!

Sorry, but I'm a little upset with what is happening to Hillary and I want 

McCain to wake up and get with the program before its too late.

Took Hillary too long to realize what was happening.

In recent days I've been hearing over and over again about reasons that Hillary is staying in the race and that it is to have leverage.  Leverage for what you ask? One theory  described below is particularly intriguing and might give you some pause especially if you are a conservative.

I can't fathom that she would want the VP spot and have to wait 8 years till she's nearly 70 for her shot at a nomination in 2016.

But here is a reward for being a good girl may be very enticing---think about it!

This from a blogger on the Eyes on Obama site. (and I have heard it echoed quite a few times)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What to do with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.  That is the question.

"It has been the subject of much debate here at eyesonobama.com in recent months.

Some have suggested she should stay in the Senate, some have suggested she should become Secretary of State in an Obama Administration and of course there is the constant VP chatter.

How about some outside the box thinking?

What if President Obama made Hillary Clinton the next Supreme Court Justice?

John Paul Stevens is going to turn 175 years old next April.  Ok, fine, he's only 89 years old, but still, he's getting old.  He's been serving on the Supreme Court for 33 years and it is likely that his time on the bench will come to an end during the first term of an Obama Administration.  If not Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Antonin Scalia are both in their 70s.  Although Scalia seems to still have plenty of kick left.

The odds are good that the next President of the United States will be appointing at least one Supreme Court Justice.

The idea of a Supreme Court Justice Clinton is not a new one.  Many have suggested an appointment of President Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court if Hillary were to win the nomination.  Of course, with the nomination out of reach for Sen. Clinton, that scenario seems unlikely.

By the way, anti-nepotism laws only prohibit a president from appointing family members to executive branch positions, the judicial branch is a different story altogether.  Furthermore, President Taft became a Supreme Court Justice after being President, so there is a Presidential Precedent in this case. 

But I digress.  This is about Hillary Clinton, not Bill. 

With the major gains in Congress the Democrats are expected to make in 2008, President Obama will have no problem getting his appointments confirmed.  Hillary Clinton will be no exception.

Sen. Clinton may not be as qualified as her husband to become a Supreme Court Justice but at least she hasn't been disbarred in the past.  If Bill Clinton were nominated, the his disbarment would certainly become a major issue.  Hillary would not face this problem.  Also, have you seen who George W. Bush has tried to nominate? 

If Harriet Miers can be considered, certainly Hillary Clinton is a legitimate option.

I should probably be careful what I wish for.  I might get it.  This option would solve many of the Hillary Clinton Problems.

Hillary Clinton needs somewhere to go after this election comes to an end.  If the thought of Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do scares you, imagine Hillary Clinton not in the White House with nothing to do.  Scary.

Making Hillary Clinton the next Supreme Court Justice would be just what Sen. Clinton needs to stay relevant.  There are major problems with most of her potential political options and many have argued that her political career will be over after this loss to Obama.  While that is yet to be seen, it is at least a possibility.

The title Supreme Court Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton would satisfy her ego, and the job would satisfy her great intellect, which has yet to be displayed during this campaign.  It would also elevate her above politics in some respects.  The fact that she is not charming and comes across as cold and heartless would be irrelevant.  It would be a step in the right direction for a gender balance in The Court and Democrats would have one less reason to worry about Roe vs. Wade being overturned.

Back in March, I asked you Sen. Clinton, to think about accepting the role of Senate Majority Leader.  You should still consider it, but while you're pondering your future, think about the Supreme Court too."

Good for Carly Fiorina (The woman that Grace loves to hate and probably the only thing she and ijl agree on-LOL) and the RNC for coming up with this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vycxh1oSUo

Shokk, forgot to say LOL to your link to Youtube. 

Susie, we should send your link to all the dems!

Shirley