We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's not only clothes that are junk. It's sprayers for the hose, it's coffee filters, it's knock together furniture, it's many electronics, it's dog leashes--they're all junk. It's hard to find quality merchandise (even a brand new mercury contaminated CFL light bulb failed right out of the package) that works as advertised. I tossed a new stapler at work years ago because it simply would not staple papers together. I scrounged one that looks like a WWII survivor that looks rough, but works like a champ.
I have one thing to say to Nancy Pelosi and to you: if you think that American Jews don't care DEEPLY about Israel and are using the security of Israel as a pretense to get a tax cut (damned greedy Kikes), then to you both I say goyishe kop.
Nancy Pelosi has an "excuse" for her offensive remark: she's a pig with lipstick. What's yours?
Agent Cooper: I have one thing to say to Nancy Pelosi and to you: if you think that American Jews don't care DEEPLY about Israel and are using the security of Israel as a pretense to get a tax cut (damned greedy Kikes), then to you both I say goyishe kop.
Except that's not what she said. Her comment was that Republicans were using Israel as a pretext for support, when their primary goal was tax cuts for the rich. In other words, exactly the opposite of what you stated.
I went on-line to find a first-hand rather than second-hand quote of what Pelosi is supposed to have said, and while her syntax is so garbled as to be nearly incomprehensible, I concede it is not only possible but probable that your interpretation is correct. I made a mistake in accepting someone else's interpretation and drawing a false conclusion from that. But I also understand why some people might have wildly misinterpreted her statement.
"Yet a majority still consider addressing environmental concerns a very important issue."
Well, of course they do. Nobody likes unclean drinking water and smog-laden air. And it's good that more and more people are waking up to the problems of over-fishing. And we've seen lots of articles recently on the possible dangers of fracking. Yep, all in all, I'd say it's pretty obvious that people care about addressing environmental concerns.
Most of what passes for environmental concerns are either phony/exaggerated or poorly disguised attempts to destroy our economy. The majority of work/regulation that actually improved the environment was done years ago and today we are spending billions and billions to squeeze out less then 1% improvement of the environment often without regard to the hidden environmental disaster it causes (corn top ethanol is an example of this). We have gone from rational maintenance of the environment to irrational throwing money away and denying citizens the ability to work, use the environment, build their homes or travel.