I have no problem if you don’t want to buy at Home Depot anymore. More power to you. I quit going to Movies 10 years ago because I grew tired of the pontificating of the “Hollywood elite”. It has done nothing to them but has made me happier and I read decidedly more to this date.

I don’t watch O’Reilly anymore, mostly because I grew tired of his pontificating and his insuferable self worship (not unlike those self important demagogues of the left).

As far as global warming is concerned, there is no doubt that it is occuring. What is debatable is the significance of the contribution of man’s activities and whether there is something that can be done to slow or stop the process. This subject deserve enlightened debate, something that the left is not particularly adept at. The left tends to brand anyone who disagrees with them as either stupid or corrupt. Since they have the answer there is no other reason possible for disagreeing with them. This ironically puts them in the same position of those that they loathe, namely ones who hold a belief based on emotion and prejudice and refuse to hear any evidence to the contrary.

I don’t dispute that mans activities may have an impact on global warming, but the signifcance of that impact is as yet unknown. The earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Man’s activity that could concievably influence global warming has been ongoing principally since the 1800’s, a very short time indeed.

A better question is “what can we do about it” Some of the “Greens” would claim we need to eliminate man’s impact altogather. That of course requires we return to the 18th Century, which I would guess most of you, no matter how passionate, would not agree. What standard of living are you willing to sacrifice in order to try to stop global warming and would it be beneficial. Are you willing to give up your TV’s, computers, i-pods, air conditioners, motorized transportation, global travel, or even having light in the evening after the sun goes down?

There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve the earth as we now see it, but there is no evidence as yet that living a middle ages lifestyle will accomplish that. Until then we should try to do what is economically feasible and look for better answers while we also decide what we are going to do to alleviate the more severe consequences of global warming as they seem to be all more real than our ability to influence global warming itself.

We have demonstrated full well that we can destroy the earth to a degree that it is uninhabitable for humans. We have also demonstrated that with good stewardship the earth has a remarkable capacity to recover. If we ever reach a point where man no longer can live here, the earth will be fine without us.

One other point: You should never adjust your actions to satisfy a professional advocate of any position. They cannot be satisfied, or they loose their reason for advocacy. You should decide for yourself how far you should go to remedy the problem addressed by the professional advocate, and how far it is reasonable to force another individual to live by your standards, knowing full well you are infringing on their freedom when you do so.

Up with Home Depot, Down with Lowes. FOX has the most viewers for a reason. “We like the real news”.

ROTFL

Make sure you call Lowes and tell them why you are not going to shop there!

ROTFL

they are reporting all night on a crash in which news reporters died. yet, they do not take time to cover the deaths of our soldiers that are said to be fighting for our freedom.

i guess it is a more noble cause to be a news man than a soldier so they prefer to morn the death of news men over that of soldiers?

Comment by paul

And what are your thoughts on billo wanting to drop Jet Blue from any connection with the Annual Kos Convention? Or Dobson wanting to boycott anything that he feels doesn’t follow the beliefs that he wants?

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Was it ok in your lone brain cell that O’Leilly went after Jet Blue for sponsoring Yearly Kos and attacked DailyKos? If so, why do you have a problem with others employing a similar tactic, going after Faux News’ sponsors, in response?

O’Lielly started it. Why is it wrong to give Faux News a dose of their own medicine?

Comment by paul — July 28, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

What do you think of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in reaction to Rosa Parks arrest?

All the callers have to do is say, “I am boycotting your company because you advertise on Bill O’Reilly”

Nothing more, nothing less. If Lowes gets enough of this feedback, they’ll stop advertising on O’Reilly. Even if ZERO people said, “I want you to stop advertising with O’Reilly”, the result would be the same. EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE CALLER STATED, “This doesn’t mean I want you to stop advertising, I just want you to know why you are losing my business.” THE END RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME.

If you’d rather Lowes simply lost that percentage of its business without knowing why, then you advocate their failure without giving them resource to regain that percentage of its business.

If O’Reilly’s message is not valid, people will tune out. Why do you feel obligated to make that decision for me?

Comment by paul — July 28, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

Oh, by the way, paul? The strong ideas win out, because they overwhelm the influence of the bad ideas. Can you guess how that happens? Here’s a hint, it’s not by still spending money with that company, or by boycotting them privately, without letting that company know why you are no longer spending money with them. Corporations actually appreciate that kind of feedback, so they can know why they’ve begun to lose shares of the market.

Comment by paul — July 28, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

You don’t think, perhaps, that this mode of attack has become so apparent because right now money is equated with free speech? Nahhhh, that couldn’t possibly be it.

The meme that corporations and lobbies have every right to “free speech” with their money however they want has been pushed by the right as a near-whole (because they are predominantly in favor of corporate rights over individual rights), and by the more corporatist on the left for decades. Decades.

The corporatists also do not want free competition. If they did, they wouldn’t support anti-trust moves like the media consolidation, the energy oligopolies that exist, and so on. Much of the stuff that was DE-regulated away prevented oligopolies from forming in the first place. The break-up of Ma Bell was FORCING competition back in to the marketplace. Now, the telecom companies have all-but restored Ma Bell, and the other industries have slowly but surely followed suit.

Boycotting a company, and making it aware of WHY you are boycotting it, is a tried and true means of allowing a business to determine if it is on the right course. They have statisticians able to determine if the feedback being received warrants a change of action, or is merely the opinion of a vocal minority.

Corporations like Lowes also have lawyers to determine if they are following the company’s written policy. If a show they advertise on goes against the advertising policy of that company, their lawyers will advise the company to stop advertising with that show.

If Lowes stopped advertising with Bill O’Reilly, that is because either their lawyers told them the transcripts they’ve received go against the advertising policy of Lowes, or their market folks told them they’ve received far too much feedback on this issue suggesting that they pull their advertising.

The progressives have just as much a right to allow their money to speak as conservatives do, or corporations do. I dare say, boycotting is a far more legitimate means of influencing the market than bribery…err, lobbying is. Or price-fixing oligopoly situations. Or monolithic monopolies are.

Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm

_”We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war,” Coulter wrote in a column published by the National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

From The National Review, no someone else paraphrasing it.

Doesn’t it just bite you trolls that none of your easily-debunked, shrill, whiney blather will either rally the public around the GOP and its media whores like O’Reilly or put you in the mainstream in terms of politics, religion or society?

You neocon lunatics are now the wild-eyed radical extremists you claim to see everywhere else, wingnuts without peer or equal or logic or abstract thinking ability

How sad a troll’s life must be when the highlight of its day is getting repeatedly smacked around on lib sites

But don’t worry Michael, your career as Rhetorical Human Punching Bag is definitely free from any real competition, as you so capably show here on a regular basis

In that respect, you’re the REAL king here