<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Here I go again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/</link>
	<description>Drinking the love from her Holy Grail</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: chris naron</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4732</link>
		<dc:creator>chris naron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4732</guid>
		<description>JMJ,

Don't talk about The Conservative Mind like you know anything about it if you haven't read it.  You don't see me critiquing your Dr. Seuss books.

McCain-Feingold prevents certain people from speaking out during elections.  These people might be people you don't like, but that's the whole idea of protecting free speech.  As long as the 1st Amendment continues to allow pornography to be made and for NAMBLA to publish its ideas, liberals have no problem.  But we can't have issue groups speaking their minds about candidates or issues.

I suppose you also agree with limiting the speech of pastors in churches.  And I'm sure you'll deny that it's a limit on free speech if all they lose is their tax exemption, but then you've violated separation of Church and state.  So, you just can't win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JMJ,</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t talk about The Conservative Mind like you know anything about it if you haven&#8217;t read it.  You don&#8217;t see me critiquing your Dr. Seuss books.</p>
<p>McCain-Feingold prevents certain people from speaking out during elections.  These people might be people you don&#8217;t like, but that&#8217;s the whole idea of protecting free speech.  As long as the 1st Amendment continues to allow pornography to be made and for NAMBLA to publish its ideas, liberals have no problem.  But we can&#8217;t have issue groups speaking their minds about candidates or issues.</p>
<p>I suppose you also agree with limiting the speech of pastors in churches.  And I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ll deny that it&#8217;s a limit on free speech if all they lose is their tax exemption, but then you&#8217;ve violated separation of Church and state.  So, you just can&#8217;t win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jersey McJones</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4675</link>
		<dc:creator>Jersey McJones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4675</guid>
		<description>No, I didn't read his silly tome.  I know about it from interviews and reveiws and discussions.  His premise that conservatism is the dynamic driving force of progress through modern history is both laughable and a lie.

Okay, Chris, how does McCain-Feingold limit free speech?  Put your money where your Rush Limbaugh fandom is.

JMJ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I didn&#8217;t read his silly tome.  I know about it from interviews and reveiws and discussions.  His premise that conservatism is the dynamic driving force of progress through modern history is both laughable and a lie.</p>
<p>Okay, Chris, how does McCain-Feingold limit free speech?  Put your money where your Rush Limbaugh fandom is.</p>
<p>JMJ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris naron</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4674</link>
		<dc:creator>chris naron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4674</guid>
		<description>You didn't read The Conservative Mind.  Russell Kirk was anything but unhappy.  Read it.  You'll learn something.

As for McCain-Feingold, I could care less what a Boston Globe editor has to say about it, for one. For another, it limits political speech-the very point of the free speech clause of the first amendment.  There's nothing conservative about limiting political speech.  Nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You didn&#8217;t read The Conservative Mind.  Russell Kirk was anything but unhappy.  Read it.  You&#8217;ll learn something.</p>
<p>As for McCain-Feingold, I could care less what a Boston Globe editor has to say about it, for one. For another, it limits political speech-the very point of the free speech clause of the first amendment.  There&#8217;s nothing conservative about limiting political speech.  Nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jersey McJones</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4670</link>
		<dc:creator>Jersey McJones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4670</guid>
		<description>Chris,

"What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?"

A Boston Globe editor was asked about that the other day on C-Span after her conservative paper had endorsed McCain.  She said, and I paraphrase, as for McCain-Fiengold, I don't see anything conservative about supporting corruption.  She thought McCain-Fiengold was good, conservative, legislation.  Do you think the old soft money system was good?  How about the second party soft money?  How about disclosure?  Other than just following Rush Limbaugh, whom I assume is like Jesus to you, what exactly is your problem with McCain-Feingold?

I'm familiar with The Conservative Mind.  In it's assertions that morality is law, static is change, disgression is bad, etc, it seems clear that it was written by an unhappy reactionary.  Whatever.  McCain may not be &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; conservative.  But to call him a "liberal" is just childish.

JMJ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>&#8220;What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?&#8221;</p>
<p>A Boston Globe editor was asked about that the other day on C-Span after her conservative paper had endorsed McCain.  She said, and I paraphrase, as for McCain-Fiengold, I don&#8217;t see anything conservative about supporting corruption.  She thought McCain-Fiengold was good, conservative, legislation.  Do you think the old soft money system was good?  How about the second party soft money?  How about disclosure?  Other than just following Rush Limbaugh, whom I assume is like Jesus to you, what exactly is your problem with McCain-Feingold?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m familiar with The Conservative Mind.  In it&#8217;s assertions that morality is law, static is change, disgression is bad, etc, it seems clear that it was written by an unhappy reactionary.  Whatever.  McCain may not be <em>that</em> conservative.  But to call him a &#8220;liberal&#8221; is just childish.</p>
<p>JMJ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micky2</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4671</link>
		<dc:creator>micky2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4671</guid>
		<description>I have a goat that does that, its a blue flame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a goat that does that, its a blue flame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris naron</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4715</link>
		<dc:creator>chris naron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4715</guid>
		<description>JMJ,

Try again. His fiscal bona fides hardly make him a conservative.  This is what I mean by changing definitions.  There's much more to being conservative than being against deficits.  As for his limited government positions, don't make me laugh.  He's for whatever government he needs to further his agenda.  What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?

Here's more: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/blog/mr__naron/index.php?showentry=2315

Also, you might want to pick up a copy of The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.  It's the most complete description of conservatism in existence.  And not because Kirk comes up with a really neat sounding definition, but because he shows what conservativism means through the great minds of the movement going all the way back to Edmund Burke.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JMJ,</p>
<p>Try again. His fiscal bona fides hardly make him a conservative.  This is what I mean by changing definitions.  There&#8217;s much more to being conservative than being against deficits.  As for his limited government positions, don&#8217;t make me laugh.  He&#8217;s for whatever government he needs to further his agenda.  What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s more: <a href="http://www.rightnation.us/forums/blog/mr__naron/index.php?showentry=2315" rel="nofollow">http://www.rightnation.us/forums/blog/mr__naron/index.php?showentry=2315</a></p>
<p>Also, you might want to pick up a copy of The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.  It&#8217;s the most complete description of conservatism in existence.  And not because Kirk comes up with a really neat sounding definition, but because he shows what conservativism means through the great minds of the movement going all the way back to Edmund Burke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AL</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4714</link>
		<dc:creator>AL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4714</guid>
		<description>Maybe I should have trained my dog to eat the cans and not the paper...we could recycle his poop for metallic methane...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I should have trained my dog to eat the cans and not the paper&#8230;we could recycle his poop for metallic methane&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micky2</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4713</link>
		<dc:creator>micky2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4713</guid>
		<description>JMJ;
"You guys just don’t understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.'

Oh ! And you do ? So you mention China ? So much for quality control huh ?
You understand it so well, yet you cant explain away our counter arguements.
Which can only mean that you are wrong.
The bottom line is this.
It does very little for the environment or the economy .
It brings 4 billion a year into Americas economy. Thats chump change jersey.
As you say , much of our plastic paper and metal is recycled only because people have been shammed into believing it somehow helps.
To recycle is one thing. To make us pay for doing it is wrong . Seeing as how the process is actually making money for companies like the one you worked for and other countries (like china), and its benefit for the environment has not been proven very limited, the average American is spending more under false pretences.
If it is so beneficial to the market why must I lose 17.5% of my investment every time I buy a soda ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JMJ;<br />
&#8220;You guys just don’t understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.&#8217;</p>
<p>Oh ! And you do ? So you mention China ? So much for quality control huh ?<br />
You understand it so well, yet you cant explain away our counter arguements.<br />
Which can only mean that you are wrong.<br />
The bottom line is this.<br />
It does very little for the environment or the economy .<br />
It brings 4 billion a year into Americas economy. Thats chump change jersey.<br />
As you say , much of our plastic paper and metal is recycled only because people have been shammed into believing it somehow helps.<br />
To recycle is one thing. To make us pay for doing it is wrong . Seeing as how the process is actually making money for companies like the one you worked for and other countries (like china), and its benefit for the environment has not been proven very limited, the average American is spending more under false pretences.<br />
If it is so beneficial to the market why must I lose 17.5% of my investment every time I buy a soda ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jersey McJones</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4712</link>
		<dc:creator>Jersey McJones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4712</guid>
		<description>Charly, get real.  The McCain immigration approach was not "amnesty."  It was a pain the glutes.  That's why it didn't past.  The cheap labor cons couldn't get it together with the anti-immigration crowd and the Dems to make a "copmprehensive" bill that could get passed and signed.  It wasn't amnesty so much as labor guarentees for the cheap labor cons and their sympathizers on both sides of the aisle.

As for what you buy that is recycled, you don't have a clue.  Much of the plastic, paper and metal that is all around you was recycled in China et al and made into what you have today.

You guys just don't understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.

JMJ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charly, get real.  The McCain immigration approach was not &#8220;amnesty.&#8221;  It was a pain the glutes.  That&#8217;s why it didn&#8217;t past.  The cheap labor cons couldn&#8217;t get it together with the anti-immigration crowd and the Dems to make a &#8220;copmprehensive&#8221; bill that could get passed and signed.  It wasn&#8217;t amnesty so much as labor guarentees for the cheap labor cons and their sympathizers on both sides of the aisle.</p>
<p>As for what you buy that is recycled, you don&#8217;t have a clue.  Much of the plastic, paper and metal that is all around you was recycled in China et al and made into what you have today.</p>
<p>You guys just don&#8217;t understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.</p>
<p>JMJ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charly martel</title>
		<link>http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/here-i-go-again/#comment-4711</link>
		<dc:creator>charly martel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/?p=404#comment-4711</guid>
		<description>If recycling is all that wonderfu, and saving all that much why is more expensive to buy the stuff with recycled content? Even the utilities get in the act. Now you can have your electricity supplied from "renewal" sources. Of course it costs more, and I can't for the life of me see how one electron differs from another. The most laughable thing about it that most of our electricity here is from hydroelectric plants. How much more renewable can it get already? Until the green fanatics can get the dams pulled down. For the fish. And can you imagine the devastation that will leave in its wake?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If recycling is all that wonderfu, and saving all that much why is more expensive to buy the stuff with recycled content? Even the utilities get in the act. Now you can have your electricity supplied from &#8220;renewal&#8221; sources. Of course it costs more, and I can&#8217;t for the life of me see how one electron differs from another. The most laughable thing about it that most of our electricity here is from hydroelectric plants. How much more renewable can it get already? Until the green fanatics can get the dams pulled down. For the fish. And can you imagine the devastation that will leave in its wake?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
