“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!
41 comments:
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.
26 OCT 2006 -- 09:34 PDT -- BREAKING NEWS! PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS SECURE FENCE ACT 2006.
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.
So following your logic ya'll better vote for Mary Starrett.
You're a moron.
bjdorr - seems that you haven't noticed that there was no money appropriated for that act. it's a political stunt, that's all.
Is this post supposed to be a joke? Pathetic.
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?
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.
Yeah, the wall to keep the Mexicans out isn't a political stunt days before the election. Not at all!
no more than having a celebrity with a disease lobbying for stem cell research and democrats. besides the wall benefited both republicans and democrats.
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/
Absolutely no danger?
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?
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
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.
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.
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)
Yeah, ABC's John Stossel and their "Path to 9/11," are proof that ABC is a liberal media outlet!
Take that!
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.
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.
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?
ABC is one of the most liberal outlets? Anything to back that one up? Or is that just your opinion?
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?
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php
Anon 4:24
Same Donaldson, Barbara Walters...
Name me one conservative news anchor on ABC.
John Stossel.
Wow. I thoroughly enjoyed the completely baseless inferences you made in that post. Good job, Daniel!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist).
someone please remind me what the original discussion was about!!!!
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?
Anon 4:10
A) ABC is highly conservative
B) So who do we refer to? FOX perhaps?
...and who gets to decide which projects are "worth fundign?"
Projects that show promise get funding. Dead ends, like embryonic stem cells, get no funding.
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?).
"Dead ends, like embryonic stem cells, get no funding."
Baseless assertion #2.
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.
"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.
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%.
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!
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.
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, 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%.
Post a Comment