Thursday, October 26, 2006

ATTN: liberal readers

“Well here we are with a few weeks left until election day and I’m about to travel throughout the Valley to set the record straight. Ted Kulongoski is a weak and vacillating politician who has attempted to woo the progressive community with empty words about the war in Iraq, the environment, good government, and his ‘vision’ for Oregon’s energy independence. These are empty political words indeed. I have watched as he has made a mockery of these vital issues. I doubt if any voter believes Kulongoski, if reelected, will follow through on his empty political promises. I certainly don’t. It is important for a leader to be truthful and committed to what he says. Oregonians deserve better. Ted it is reality therapy time.” ----- Joe Keating Green Party candidate for governor

Vote your concious liberals. Don't let Kulongoski fool you. He's a tool of the military-industrial complex. He's not a liberal! Only Keating will create the socialist utopia that you so desire. You must vote for Joe Keating!

45 comments:

Tim said...

So, is Joe Keating saying "Gee Ted we thought you were one of us ("Progressive" = communist, socialist, totalitarian,envior-whacko, moonbats) but you're just an empty suit.

bjdorr said...

26 OCT 2006 -- 09:34 PDT -- BREAKING NEWS! PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS SECURE FENCE ACT 2006.

Anonymous said...

You must have posted this right after you saw the most recent poll? The one where Saxton is down 11%? Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Wow this is desperate.

Anonymous said...

So following your logic ya'll better vote for Mary Starrett.

You're a moron.

Anonymous said...

bjdorr - seems that you haven't noticed that there was no money appropriated for that act. it's a political stunt, that's all.

Anonymous said...

Is this post supposed to be a joke? Pathetic.

Kaelri said...

So... the "vital issues" of "the war in Iraq, the environment, good government, and [a] ‘vision’ for Oregon’s energy independence" constitute a desire for a socialist utopia?

Anonymous said...

anon 12:39,

$1.2 billion down payment on the project does not make it a political stunt. Sorry make sure you research before critizing.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the wall to keep the Mexicans out isn't a political stunt days before the election. Not at all!

Anonymous said...

no more than having a celebrity with a disease lobbying for stem cell research and democrats. besides the wall benefited both republicans and democrats.

Anonymous said...

Um yeah, because Michael J. Fox doing an ad for a disease THAT HE HAS and has TESTIFIED AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS FOR FOR YEARS is a stunt.
He comes out and says people should vote for Democrats because they believe in science. That's not a stunt you moron! It's a freaking political ad.

Chris McMullen said...

Anon 2:12,

This probably comes as a surprise to you, but fetal stem cell research is not illegal. It's in absolutely no danger of becoming illegal.

Michael J. Fox and them Dems are doing nothing but fear mongering.

Moreover, if fetal stem cell research is so promising, how come there's scant private investment in it?

Anonymous said...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/

Absolutely no danger?

Anonymous said...

Someone answer just one question for me. How come when a Liberal is challenged they start name calling (re: anon 2:12 "that's not a stunt you moron)? Do they really feel that threaten by the truth?

Anonymous said...

Michael J. Fox is doing absolutely nothing but fear mongering? Try doing whatever he can to find a cure for a disease that he lives with every day.

You guys really screwed up with this issue, one that the public is in favor of by a 2 to 1 margin.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:14,

Please find a news agency that reports the truth and is not one sided.

CNN and ABC are completely Liberal news agencies.

Anonymous said...

Someone answer just one question for me - how come when whacko righties create blogs they sound like morons?
Oops! Did I call you a name?
haha. Fools.

Anonymous said...

Like I said Liberals result in name calling when they are wrong.

Maybe Anon 4:10 should try and act just a little more mature (if that is possible)

Chris McMullen said...

Anon 3:58,

How is denying federal funding toward research endangering the legality of said research?

And I ask again, if fetal stem cell research is so promising, where's all the private investment?

I swear, the more partisan a liberal gets, logic and reason go right out the window.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, ABC's John Stossel and their "Path to 9/11," are proof that ABC is a liberal media outlet!
Take that!

Anonymous said...

you all sound like a bunch of 12 year olds. The pint of the post is that even Ted's kind (Liberals, The Oregonian, etc.) don't want him back. His ad lists a bunch of things that happened "because of Ted K", but they happened in spite of him.

Anonymous said...

Try and stay focus....ABC news is one of the most liberal newscast out there.

Oh yeah under pressure from the liberals they edited "Path to 9/11" to make the Clinton happy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McMullen:
Did anyone ever say that it was? I've read through these posts and I simply don't see it anywhere.
I think the poster is right, actually; I think we've screwed up when it comes to this issue.
Michael J. Fox is campaigning for candidates who are in favor of stem cell research (I work in a research facility and most of our grant funding comes from the NIH)and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the man standing up for himself.
Funding for research when it comes to any disease is crucial.
You can at least admit that on this issue we've gone a little too far?

Anonymous said...

ABC is one of the most liberal outlets? Anything to back that one up? Or is that just your opinion?

Anonymous said...

I think it's telling that none of the conservatives have acknowledged the poll post. Was this original post because of the most recent poll that showed Saxton is down 11 points?

Anonymous said...

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:24

Same Donaldson, Barbara Walters...

Name me one conservative news anchor on ABC.

Anonymous said...

John Stossel.

Chris McMullen said...

Anon 4:23 (why are you all so afraid to use your real names?)

Have you seen the ad? Michael J Fox does not differentiate between adult and embryonic stem cell research. He says Jim Talent "opposes expanding stem cell research" (which is not true, Jim Talent is in favor of adult stem cell research).

The ad is disingenuous and is obvious fear mongering.

I really don't care what happens to embryos, personally. However, a law has been passed to ban federal funding. Period.

If MJF wants a cure so bad, why doesn't he donate all his millions to embryonic stem cell research? Shit, I'm sure a good liberal like Bill Gates would love to donate.

If you want money to carve up embryos, go get it from the private sector.

Bryan Saxton said...

Wow. I thoroughly enjoyed the completely baseless inferences you made in that post. Good job, Daniel!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Anonymous said...

someone please remind me what the original discussion was about!!!!

Anonymous said...

Chris,
I stated earlier in a post (which you ignored) that most research funding in the united states comes from the nih. If there was no federal funding for medical and scientific research there wouldn't be cures to most diseases. Surely you're not arguing for that, are you?

Bryan Saxton said...

Anon 4:10

A) ABC is highly conservative

B) So who do we refer to? FOX perhaps?

Chris McMullen said...

4:51,

The NIH wastes money on all kinds of things -- embryonic stem cell research not withstanding.

I totally advocate spending tax payer dollars on research that shows major promise. So far, hESC doesn't show much (if any) promise for another 30 years.

The NIH's budget could be cut on half and still fund projects worth funding. Just like 90% of all government institutions.

Anonymous said...

...and who gets to decide which projects are "worth fundign?"

Daniel said...

Projects that show promise get funding. Dead ends, like embryonic stem cells, get no funding.

BEAR said...

SOOOOO, teddy kulongclownski is too conservative for the REAL libs? How sad for them. After the election, we shall see precisely how many true whack-jobs we are saddled with in Oregon (where's Nader when you need him?).

Bryan Saxton said...

"Dead ends, like embryonic stem cells, get no funding."

Baseless assertion #2.

Chris Pieschel said...

Regarding the poll... a poll of 455 people with a margin of error of almost 5% is hardly credible. Kulongowski's own people don't even think it's legitimate.

From the Oregonian: "His poll showed Saxton losing as badly in the 1st and 5th congressional districts, which are closely divided between the Rs and Ds, as he is in the 3rd, which includes most of Democrat-heavy Portland."

No way Saxton is losing in rural western Oregon the same percentages as in Portland. I suppose we'll find out on the 7th, though.

Daniel said...

"Baseless assertion #2"

If embryonic stem cells show promise to cure horrible disease then why doesn't Pfizer fund the research? It's pretty common sense: the free market system picks winners and losers with money.

There is no law against private funding, there is a ban on taxpayer funding.

Bryan Saxton said...

Come on, Daniel. Even you must see the problem with the assertion you just made. You haven't begun to address all the situations that arise with a free market society. Ex: lack of initial funding, advertizement, economic feasability. Just because these factors hamper the business side of a research program doesn't mean the solution is a bad solution.

Also, polls are considered reliable until their margin of error exceeds 5%.

Anonymous said...

I missed seeing Joe (or Mary) in the Governor's Debates? That's right, only one of them are going to win... Ted was nearly beat by a Republican radical, so he's governed from the middle - thus nobody likes him. But we're to trust a Portland Attorney instead? -- Mary sounds like the clear choice to me!

Anonymous said...

bryan saxton, initial funding comes from the organizations and companies themselves. They are multi-billion dollar companies. If something shows promise, they will fund it. It's as simple as that.

And polls are considered reliable within 3% margin of error.

Anonymous said...

You don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to research funding, you're absolutely WRONG.
Seriously you need to get a life and go do a little research yourself.

Bryan Saxton said...

"bryan saxton, initial funding comes from the organizations and companies themselves. They are multi-billion dollar companies. If something shows promise, they will fund it. It's as simple as that."

I can't beleive you don't see the general assumptions and logical fallacies in the above. First, not all research facilities are multi-billion dollar companies. Most exist on the whim of federal funding. Second, investors are strongly dissuaded from investing in something that receives little or no federal funding. Third, you make the assumption that capitalism is incapable of making mistakes when it comes to ethical and logical decisions.

"And polls are considered reliable within 3% margin of error."
Every professor I've spoken with in regards to polls and statistics agrees that 5% is the cutoff for reliable margin of error. I seriously don't know where you got 3%.