New Mexico is much more than oil and gas

Kewl wrote:

<quoted text>No SJC liberal does not want to know the difference. If so It would require re-thinking of a lot of liberal ideas and there is no liberal on earth wants to admit they are wrong, or worse, to admit someone else might be right.

But cons jump to say their wrong, when they're wrong of course.For example, look at the number of cons that wouldn't admit they were wrong about about global warming. Because, of course, they weren't wrong.The Earth is cooling down for goodness sake.Just look at the ice caps for proof.
A little closer to home, look at the number of cons who won't admit that the recession is what has a big impact on O&G layoffs in the Basin. Because of course there not wrong about that either.Everyone knows it's the new pit rules of course. Just look at how well every other state in the US is doing with their O&G. Also cons aren't wrong about Safeway workers not having a right to strike. Nothing wrong about that.Why, it's totally un American to strike for higher wages. Everyone knows that. Or what about that commie, Marxist Catholic priest who made an appeal for more equity for the poor. He denied he was preaching socialism but the cons weren't fooled by that.No sirree. Cons know a con when the see one.(Did I say that right? I think so).
Yeah, cons are the first to admit they're wrong all right. It's just that they are never wrong that's all.

Street Slum Slayer wrote:

<quoted text>Mr. Nickel..........your arrogance is quickly becoming a nuisance.

Sorry if you are threatened by assertive people. If you don't like what I have to say, feel free to skip my posts when you see my username. I won't mind. I'll write what I want to write, but you certainly don't have to read it.

C Lee Nickel wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll write what I want to write

And that includes lying about anyone, any time and screaming freedom of speech when you're caught.
Write your lying crap, we all know about you now.
You, sir, are a sorry excuse for an American.

oneeyedjack wrote:

<quoted text>And that includes lying about anyone, any time and screaming freedom of speech when you're caught.
Write your lying crap, we all know about you now.
You, sir, are a sorry excuse for an American.

Spare us your phony outrage, jack. You are what you are: An unrepentant turncoat republican who doesn't have the courage of conviction, and who bolted the party because you are afraid of powerful women like Sarah Palin. As a result, you are partly to blame for the rapid destruction of our nation at the hands of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Co.

Someday, if you come to your senses and atone for your actions, you may deserve forgiveness. However, it's obvious that day has yet to come.

In the meantime, I've spent all the time I can on you. It's time to move on.

C Lee Nickel wrote:

<quoted text>
In the meantime, I've spent all the time I can on you. It's time to move on.

Of course you want to move on, liar. You got caught telling your damn lies and now you want to move on as if nothing happened. Well something did happen. You lied about me, you lied about others and you lied about our President. I am not going to let you "move on". You did it and by God you're accountable. Nobody, but nobody respects or trusts a liar. If you'll lie about me, you'll lie about anybody. YOU ARE A LIAR! Period. That's is what you are.
You didn't just say something that was incorrect. You didn't even say something you couldn't live up too. No, not you. You flat out LIED.
You are a sorry excuse for an American and a sorry person. No amount of your BS can change what you did or what you are.
YOU ARE A LIAR! Everybody that visits here should know that.
CL Nickel, YOU ARE A LIAR!

Kewl wrote:

<quoted text>No SJC liberal does not want to know the difference. If so It would require re-thinking of a lot of liberal ideas and there is no liberal on earth wants to admit they are wrong, or worse, to admit someone else might be right.

Funny, it's the far right that seems to hang on to ideas forever... And I have yet to hear any conservative to admit that they could be wrong (see NY CD 23.. way to go there!!)

I was merely throwing ideas out there... yes the film industry gets lots of breaks, that's how you attract them.. They also spend more money than they get lots more.
That wasn't my point, the point was, we need to diversify, we've been a one horse state too long... a point that it shouldn't be too hard to see......

oneeyedjack wrote:

<quoted text>Wow! And you don't even use chicken bones I bet. Wonder if you would treat your own cancer if diagnosed. Wow!

You blew it with this one. For now on "ALL" your posts are nonsense. I am glad you made this one short. PLease continue to go by the same user name so I will be able to skip past your rambling madness.

SJC Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, it's the far right that seems to hang on to ideas forever... And I have yet to hear any conservative to admit that they could be wrong (see NY CD 23.. way to go there!!)
I was merely throwing ideas out there... yes the film industry gets lots of breaks, that's how you attract them.. They also spend more money than they get lots more.
That wasn't my point, the point was, we need to diversify, we've been a one horse state too long... a point that it shouldn't be too hard to see......

That's the whole point of being conservative: sticking to an unchanging group of initial positions which work. The U.S. Constitution is the founding document this nation was built on, and I believe it to be a divinely inspired work that is still correct after all of these centuries.

The roots of the downfall of this nation, socially, economically, spiritually, can be directly traced to the points in history where the Constitution is ignored or violated.

The Federal government was never meant to be the overwhelming influence in our lives. Governance was meant to be left primarily to state and local governments, so that people could "vote with their feet" if one state or locality was unduly taxing or oppressing it's people.

The Federal legislature, with full complicity by the Executive and the Judicial, have usurped the power the wield today by continually violating the U.S. Constitution for the last century.

The idea that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" or that it is a "living document" is entirely false. The Constitution was meant to be an unchanging set of simpled basic laws by which our government would stand, with all other powers left to the states and local governments.

Thus, conservatives, in their basic principles, do not need to ever admit they are "wrong" in this matter, since the U.S. Constitution still exists as it did at the founding of the nation, and can be referred to at any time, in it's simplicity, for guidance.

Constitutional principles are unchanging. A person who unfailingly sticks to Constitutional principles is correct in doing so, can never be "wrong" in doing so, and has no need to pervert those principles or ideals merely to placate those less informed.

Simply put: Yes, the "far right" will hang onto the idea that the Constitution is infallible forever. And I, for one, am proud to do it.

C Lee Nickel wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the whole point of being conservative: sticking to an unchanging group of initial positions which work. The U.S. Constitution is the founding document this nation was built on, and I believe it to be a divinely inspired work that is still correct after all of these centuries.
The roots of the downfall of this nation, socially, economically, spiritually, can be directly traced to the points in history where the Constitution is ignored or violated.
The Federal government was never meant to be the overwhelming influence in our lives. Governance was meant to be left primarily to state and local governments, so that people could "vote with their feet" if one state or locality was unduly taxing or oppressing it's people.
The Federal legislature, with full complicity by the Executive and the Judicial, have usurped the power the wield today by continually violating the U.S. Constitution for the last century.
The idea that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" or that it is a "living document" is entirely false. The Constitution was meant to be an unchanging set of simpled basic laws by which our government would stand, with all other powers left to the states and local governments.
Thus, conservatives, in their basic principles, do not need to ever admit they are "wrong" in this matter, since the U.S. Constitution still exists as it did at the founding of the nation, and can be referred to at any time, in it's simplicity, for guidance.
Constitutional principles are unchanging. A person who unfailingly sticks to Constitutional principles is correct in doing so, can never be "wrong" in doing so, and has no need to pervert those principles or ideals merely to placate those less informed.
Simply put: Yes, the "far right" will hang onto the idea that the Constitution is infallible forever. And I, for one, am proud to do it.

Looks to me like the oneeyedjack-ass lost this one.
Just a few points - Dinosaurs emitted one heck of a lot of CO2, Dry Ice is CO2, The world went into an Ice Age which was the Last of the Dinosaurs, Marxist Socialist Democrats like oneeyedjack are saying CO2 causes Global Warming - Do they also believe that Dinosaurs are not extinct ?

AmIcrazy wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks to me like the oneeyedjack-**** lost this one.
Just a few points - Dinosaurs emitted one heck of a lot of CO2, Dry Ice is CO2, The world went into an Ice Age which was the Last of the Dinosaurs, Marxist Socialist Democrats like oneeyedjack are saying CO2 causes Global Warming - Do they also believe that Dinosaurs are not extinct ?

Dinosaurs did emit a lot of CO2, you're right. There were a lots and lots and lots of trees then that used the CO2 also. Isn't nature wonderful? But my post was really about oil and dinosaurs, not GW and dinosaurs. No matter, you provide a good segue with your inability to comprehend a discussion topic.
Yes I'm sure every Marxist Socialist Democrat, knows CO2 is a green house gas and that CO2 contributes to the "green house effect". You know the green house effect that when in a particular balance gives the Earth a favorable climate for us humans.( The key word is CONTRIBUTES. As every elementary general science student knows, there are OTHER green house gases).
Of course I realize every one who knows we're affected by CO2 is deemed to be a Marxist Socialist Democrat by people like you, but I just happen not to be one. Again, no matter because you don't know what a Marxist Socialist Democrat is anyway. You only use the term as a pejorative because you think it connotes a terrible person or something. You just need to vilifying the CO2 global warning messenger. You have no data to show that CO2- including man generated- isn't having an effect on global warming. Why don't you have any data? Because there isn't any that's why, and you know it.But somehow, in your feeble mind, if you can discredit the messenger that will make up for having no scientific evidence to the contrary.
You can do that all you want of course, but it doesn't change anything. You're not going to shut people down for reminding the country of the harm CO2 emissions do and besides all that the debate, the real debate , is far beyond that anyway. If you could read the news paper or change the channel away from FOX, you might learn what the debate IS about now. But stay stuck on stupid, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Man generated CO2 is doing to the climate what it is doing to the climate and your childish labeling is not going to change that.
You might be able to shut down progress toward the US reducing man generated CO2 emissions. You might even shut down preparations to help ward off the effects of global warming.You might be able to do those things. Ignorance has done that much and more in the past. To the determent of mankind I might add.I am well aware of the power of stupidity , believe me.
It is strange though how you people believe that all you have to do is intimidate someone and situations you object to will just go away. The situation with CO2 and global warming is no different. But it will not go away and neither will the effects.
So who wins if you succeed in doing those things? Nobody, you mental dwarf. We all lose.

C Lee Nickel wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the whole point of being conservative: sticking to an unchanging group of initial positions which work. The U.S. Constitution is the founding document this nation was built on, and I believe it to be a divinely inspired work that is still correct after all of these centuries.
The roots of the downfall of this nation, socially, economically, spiritually, can be directly traced to the points in history where the Constitution is ignored or violated.
The Federal government was never meant to be the overwhelming influence in our lives. Governance was meant to be left primarily to state and local governments, so that people could "vote with their feet" if one state or locality was unduly taxing or oppressing it's people.
The Federal legislature, with full complicity by the Executive and the Judicial, have usurped the power the wield today by continually violating the U.S. Constitution for the last century.
The idea that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" or that it is a "living document" is entirely false. The Constitution was meant to be an unchanging set of simpled basic laws by which our government would stand, with all other powers left to the states and local governments.
Thus, conservatives, in their basic principles, do not need to ever admit they are "wrong" in this matter, since the U.S. Constitution still exists as it did at the founding of the nation, and can be referred to at any time, in it's simplicity, for guidance.
Constitutional principles are unchanging. A person who unfailingly sticks to Constitutional principles is correct in doing so, can never be "wrong" in doing so, and has no need to pervert those principles or ideals merely to placate those less informed.
Simply put: Yes, the "far right" will hang onto the idea that the Constitution is infallible forever. And I, for one, am proud to do it.

Impressive patriotic statement.. Too bad Bush didn't listen to you ....

But what does the Constitution have to do with looking for ways to diversify New Mexico's economy??

SJC Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Impressive patriotic statement.. Too bad Bush didn't listen to you ....
But what does the Constitution have to do with looking for ways to diversify New Mexico's economy??

Simply put: Everything.

Limited Federal authority over the states allows each state to develop it's regional resources as they see fit, without Federal interference. States must now look to the Feds for "permission", when Constitutionally they don't have to. Most Federal agencies simply should not exist, as there is no Constitutional authority for them to do so. Furthermore, state agencies look to the Federal government for precedent in how to handle the state's economy, and often the Federal precedent is entirely wrong.

This nation grew and prospered when the Federal Government wasn't intrusive and stifling. And this nation's economy has grown less sustainable in direct proportion to the rise in Federal power. The Federal government is no role model for efficient state planning, that's for sure.

I find it humorous that you libs keep bringing up President Bush as if he's still President. I don't know if you realize this or not, but President Bush was barred from running for a third term. It's illegal. There was no way he could run again. Attempting to use Bush's name to drive home your point doesn't work, especially with me. President Bush, for all his failings, was far superior to President Obama in every way, with the possible exception of public speaking ability. And even that is debatable, as Obama doesn't make speeches, he reads them off a teleprompter. When caught flat-footed without his screen to look at, Obama's public speaking ability is often worse than Bush's ever was.

I've also unashamedly stated, right here in these forums, that I would have voted for a third term for President Bush over either McCain or Obama, if I had been allowed to do so. The more time goes by with President Obama in office, the more firm I am in that conviction.

Oh, and by the way: What does former President Bush have to do with diversifying New Mexico's economy? He lives in Texas.