“We Welcome Diversity”
Ocean Haven
Nature Friendly Lodging on the Beautiful Oregon Coast
WE WELCOME DIVERSITY
Respecting the interdependence & diversity of all nature loving species.
Cool!
NO SMOKERS
For health, safety and conservation concerns, Ocean Haven is unable to accommodate smokers.
Awww. What if they’re hand rolled cigarettes with no filters?
NO OPEN FIRES
NO BEACH FIRES * NO BBQ * NO CANDLES * NO INCENSE
These guys don’t seem like a lot of fun.
NATURE FRIENDLY
Nature-friendly cleaning & maintenance. Committed to limiting human impact on nature.
No Hummers, No RVs, No Bush Voters (due to his environmental destructive policies e.g.; nonparticipation in Kyoto Treaty, The Clear Skies Act, continuation of naval sonar in marine mammal habitats…)
Ah haha. If you don’t think that a worldwide socialist redistribution scheme involving the selling and buying of “carbon credits” is such a good idea, they don’t want you to stay at their place. If you don’t think that national defense should take a back seat to whales, they don’t want you to stay at their place.
People are strange sometimes.
(via Right Thinking from the Left Coast)
WHAT??????
So Rob, you contend that Kerry voted for and against the same bill? The exact same bill? Not two different bills? Is that your story?
Flip (pre-election):
My opponent wants to put your security in the hands of Europe.
Flop (post-election):
I appreciate Europe taking the lead with Iran.
Now, there’s many Bush flip-flops (CO2, abortion come to mind) but that’s my favorite.
Bush specifically opposed offering incentives. Something about how you can’t bribe a dictatorship into compliance.
And yet now that’s what he wants to do.
I’m not saying which approach is right; just pointing out Bush’s inconcistencies. It’s a flip-flop no matter how you look at it.
JadeGold picks on Rich Lowry for sources, yet provides his own link to a sourceless NYT writer… Nice!!!!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/10/MNGE9BN4QC1.DTL
Where’s the Flip ??? Or the Flop?
Translation:
We can’t be bothered with little things like how Bush deals with Hezbollah. There are hippies to ridicule!
Look. Look. Look.
See conservatives.
See conservatives flip flop.
Flop. Flop. Flop.
About that story…Rich Lowry from National Review has this from an insider.
Looks like another case of presidential undermining by some holdover “unnamed” hacks. Par for the course, apparently.
Read the news, Seth.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/10/MNGE9BN4QC1.DTL
About that story…Rich Lowry from National Review has this from an insider.
And the name of Lowry’s source is…..{{crickets chirping}}.
You make it so easy, Slarrow.
I hate to burst your stereotype, but I support the war on terror, and supported Bush until he said he didn’t care if we caught bin Laden or not. And if you think Iraq is going exactly as planned, I’ve got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.
Besides, wasn’t Bush the one whining about putting our security in the hands of Europe? Then he went ahead and did exactly that?
Wait a minute, Rob. You’re saying AWOL George recognizes Hezbollah and is permitting them a big voice in Lebanon—but I thought we were at war with terrorists?
Should we rename it the ‘War on Some Terror but Not All’?
From Jadegold’s link:
Elsewhere, the piece says that the “new” position is “a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon.” Even assuming the piece is right (The only U. S. official quoted refused to be named? That’s suspicious, isn’t it?), that’s a pretty loose definition of “supporting”, Jadegold.
One thing you can count on from the cult of AWOL George is unconditional support for whatever AWOL Georgie is doing.
Even if it was something that, several days ago, would have been considered unthinkable.
Indeed. Isn’t it interesting the Bushies are now supporting Hezbollah?
Watch the Repugs start supporting Hezbollah…
What a bunch of jackasses.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but trying to characterize Bush’s recent actions as support for Hezbollah is craziness, pure and simple.
Where has Bush supported incentives for Iran?
Recognizing that a particular group is an influence in a region the U.S. is concerned with isn’t the same as supporting said group.
Flip flop:
I voted before it before I voted against it.
Not a flip flop:
Different foreign policies for different situations.
Isn’t this what you anti-war people want? Diplomacy? Not a “rush to war?” Funny how you guys screech about the invasion of Iraq and then screech when Bush doesn’t immediately decide to take on Hezbollah with tanks and troops.
Could it be that the President is employing different tactics for different situations?
No, of course not. Chimpy McHitlerburton is obviously in-league with the terrorists now.
The president expresses some thanks to Europe for their work with Iran and suddenly that means that he’s putting America’s security in Europe’s hands?
Are you suggesting that the President has to be against whatever Europe does even if they’re doing something he agrees with in order to be consistent?
That seems like a ridiculous positin.