Still Hating America.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought it was Ty that echoed Weed? Or was is that only in odd-numbered years?

Don't you have some histrionics to direct at McCain after his comment about wasting lives in Iraq? Why do Republcans still hate America?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Don't you have some histrionics to direct at McCain after his comment about wasting lives in Iraq? Why do Republcans still hate America?

I pretty much ignore McCain* completely. Did he say something?

*other than when he mocks Babs on SNL

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I pretty much ignore McCain* completely. Did he say something?

*other than when he mocks Babs on SNL

But you don't ignore Obama?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
But you don't ignore Obama?

One could very easily differentiate between McCain's suggestion that the US is "wasting" the lives of its soldiers, ie, the government is faulty, and Obama's suggestion that the soldier's lives were "wasted", ie, their mission is pointless, but such nuances might be lost on a moonbat like you.

In any event, I have no desire to defend McCain. To me, he's always been nothing more than a grandstanding boor.

And of all the GOP candidates, he's the only one avoiding CPAC.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One could very easily differentiate between McCain's suggestion that the US is "wasting" the lives of its soldiers, ie, the government is faulty, and Obama's suggestion that the soldier's lives were "wasted", ie, their mission is pointless, but such nuances might be lost on a moonbat like you.

In any event, I have no desire to defend McCain. To me, he's always been nothing more than a grandstanding boor.

And of all the GOP candidates, he's the only one avoiding CPAC.

That's enough spin to get those turbines started. Now can you get Spanky in for some wind?

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's enough spin to get those turbines started. Now can you get Spanky in for some wind?

I remember when all of the PB's energy needs could be satisfied with the methane from just one PenskePost. <<snarf>>

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
his hairy-pitted Berkeley grad student girlfriend who's too dumb to do math but he can't break up with her because she's a killer in the sack after she's smoked the kind.

You say that like its a bad thing.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You've chosen the most absurd wing of the Left I described as an example of what I was addressing. I was not addressing loons. I was addressing the majority of left wing posters here. There's a massive echo chamber in favor of bashing Spanky and Slave into the ground. Slave does himself few favors with those goofy non-criticisms of Gore. But what I see here is a cheap version of the old Gore Vidal vs. Bill Buckley deabtes, the only difference being, Spanky's one Buckley, and Ty is one Vidal (not calling you a preening pansy Ty, I'm actually complimenting you), and everybody else is Vidal's cheerleader. Spanky's position gets no traction because he's left arguing against a dozen people coming at him with 500 different points. It's probably a criticism of his own board strategy that he chooses to address them all. He'd be better served duking it out with Ty alone.

I think Spanky, Slave and libertarians like me recognize there is a problem. But when you let the govt get involved, you get the fellow travelers in charge. You'll get a Sarbanes-Oxley solution worse than the problem, so No, I don't want the govt getting into the GW situation. Their cure always winds up costing everyone 3X what the problem did, and making the problem worse. The better course is for the govt to grant business and people huge incentives go green. I'd part with my beloved behemoth if Uncle Sam made it worth my while. So far he hasn't.

Telling people hat to do only creates consultants who guide them around the process because no matter how tough the regs, the people writing them carve out loopholes to allow the powerful to circumvent them. I've gone up against the EPA a few times, on behalf of small businesses. The very last thing this country needs is to give an organization so inept, so wasteful and so poluted with untalented public sector hacks greater oversight.

We should tell Exxon/Mobil they can have their tax credits back only if every dollar of them go into green fuel R&D. Tillerson is creating a very dangerous economic event down the road by directing that company solely at oil exploration, without any real backup plan in the event people start shifting to green fuel. We can't se that company turn into another GM, which it will if it has all its money poured into long term R&D while the world starts moving toward green fuels...

But then again, he always has China and India to sell to, and we're talking 2100 at the earliest for these concerns anyway...

So, you're right. The govt should do something. It should make it economically sensible to go green. Any other effort's a loser.

Thanks for the parenthetical clarification!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Can we hook up turbines to the PB?

If not, the carbon credits to offset all this hot air are going to bankrupt RT and Slave.

Oh, except that it's bonus time in SF. Never mind. Party on.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
FWIW, I don't deny global warming. I also don't deny global cooling. Both happen. Both happened before. Both will happend again. Who gives a fuck. Wear shorts. Or wear a sweater.

Mark Sanford, Republican Gov. of SC, in WaPo:

• The real "inconvenient truth" about climate change is that some people are losing their rights and freedoms because of the actions of others -- in either the quality of the air they breathe, the geography they hold dear, the insurance costs they bear or the future environment of the children they love.
  
  But like a polar bear searching for solid ice, many people seem ready to dig into the first solution offered to slow or reverse climate change. Cue former vice president Al Gore -- the politician turned screen star who could take home an Academy Award this weekend and a Nobel Peace Prize later this year -- whose call for greater government intervention is resonating with administrations in this country and across the globe: California may soon ban incandescent light bulbs; France wants to force the Kyoto-less United States to pay carbon taxes on exports; and the European Union is pushing automobile emission standards that would cost carmakers such as Volvo roughly $3,200 more per vehicle.
  
  Make no mistake, the issue of environmental conservation sits squarely on the battle line between government and liberty. From light bulbs to automobiles, government will gladly expand its regulatory reach even if the result is a hamstrung economy and curtailed individual freedoms. Yet conservatives have remained largely absent from this debate, and by pulling back from the environmental battle they have conceded the high ground to those on the far left.
  
  I believe conservatives have a window of opportunity, but that window is closing fast.
  
  First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks.
  
  Second, conservatives must reclaim lost ground from far-left interest groups by showing how environmental conservation is as much about expanding economic opportunity as it is about saving whales or replanting rain forests. When corporations such as BP and Shell America pursue alternative energy sources, they not only cut carbon emissions but help cut our petroleum dependency on OPEC nations. When South Carolina restaurants recycle their oyster shells, they not only restore shellfish habitat but take a job off local governments' plates and ensure continuing revenue streams for local fishermen.
  
  Third, conservatives must respond to climate change with innovation, not regulation. This means encouraging private research and implementation of more eco-friendly construction, more energy-efficient workplaces and more sustainable ways of going about life -- all of which cuts costs and protects God's creation. It means looking past the question of whether your car's exhaust melts polar ice caps and instead treating our environment as an investment our future depends on.

God, what a fucking pussy. Just put on some shorts already.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Are you really this stupid? It's science. A theory doesn't pan out, or we learn something new, and our understanding changes. Whether they were wrong then has fuck-all to do with whether they are wrong now.

In the past, I have been accused of turning the debates on this board personal and petty (and accused of calling people names like stupid). I have consistently claimed that I never intitate the food fight (I never turn to name calling or get personal first) , but I do respond in kind. Adder's post is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He drew first blood so I am going to respond in kind.

Being called stupid by incredibly stupid people I generally take as a compliment. Thank you.


Are you listening to yourself? "if the theory doesn't pan out, we learn something new"?????. What about all the damage caused by listening to the theory that doesn't pan out? It is fine if it is just a theory, but when that theory is used as a tool to institute policy change, and the theory, in this case, turns out to be completely wrong, you have serious problems. You make is sound like, “whoops no big deal we got it wrong. Do over.” What about thirty years from now when we hit a Global cooling trend and someone says the something like "well, the theory of Global Warming didn't pan out, and we learned something new. But we are entering a new ice age so we need to invest in equipment to that will increase our Carbon footprint". Luckily, when this theory of Global Cooling was put forward the people in power did not listen to the alarmists so no expensive policies were instituted by the government. But man, all sorts of massive policy programs were proposed, and if you discounted them you were considered naive and stupid. The exact same arguments you are throwing at me were thrown out the skeptics of Global Cooling. Well thank God the "naive and stupid" people won the day, and the incorrect theory did not cause as nearly as much damage as it could have. The incredibly ironic thing, is that if they are now right about Global Cooling, they were suggesting policy moves that would have made the situation even worse.

What connection does it have? It shows us how much we can depend on climatologists to get it right. Since they screwed that one up, the Gulf War prediction up, and countless others, don't you think it is about time to raise the bar of evidence a little bit? Clearly the science is not well developed, so maybe this time we get smart and demand something concrete before we are going to start preparing for the THEORY they are throwing out.

Originally posted by Adder
Okay, you are this stupid.

As I said, from you that is a compliment

Originally posted by Adder
This is wrong as a simple matter of logic, much less for the complex systems of climate science. First of all, who says that carbon is the ONLY factor effecting temperatures? Um... parently only you.

What? Yes - the tried and true tactic of the dishonest debater. If the opponent doesn't say something you can criticize, make something up that he or she said and criticize that.

Originally posted by Adder Second, who said each marginal unit of carbon effects climate the same way? Again, no one except you.

Wow, two lies in one post, you are on a roll.

Originally posted by Adder Third, who says that the planet's atmostphere can't absorb some base level of carbon with no ill effects?

No one that I know of. But let me guess, you are going to assign that idea to me and then criticize it. At least get original in your dishonesty. If you are just going to make up my position, why do you even need me to post to criticize what I say? You clearly don't need me for you to have a debate with me.

Originally posted by Adder Four, who assumes that even if human are releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to effect it, climate change is constant and linear? Answer again, is only someone with the IQ of a poached salmon.

If the contrubtuion is going to effect change in one direction I expect it to be at least somewhat constant and linear. If it is not going to effect change in a constant direction, what do we have to worry about? If the releases can effect change in the other direction then what is going to happe next is anyone's guess. You are like the guy saying that if you blow on the roulette ball it will affect the outcome. That is true, but if you have no idea what the outcome will be, or show that it will create a consistent outcome, what good is that knowledge?

Originally posted by Adder
Wow.

A little mind grasps an elementary concept.

Originally posted by Adder
If your argument is that you think it costs too much (you are probably wrong, btw, as this is the standard argument against any and all environmental regulation, and has always been wrong in the past),

Always been wrong in the past? It has been proposed (in fact I personally saw a California state assemblyman propose it) that we require an end to all vehicle emissions in California by the year 2010. If the argument against environmental regulations that they are too expensive is always wrong (as you stated in no uncertain terms), then I guess you support that proposal. Hell why don't we require it by next month. What do we have to lose, if envrionmental regulations can never be too expensive? Hell, why don't we just make it illegal for anyone in the United States to pollute? And you call me stupid?

Don't say absurd things like, "gee, it was colder last year, so we can't be causing global warming."

When did I say that? Again, I am wondering why you even need me for this argument.

Originally posted by Adder
How are we doing that when we ask people to use more energy-efficient light bulbs, turn down the thermostat a degree, buy hybrid cars, require cars to be more fuel efficient or ask people to think about walking? How does buidling wind generation do that? How does building nuclear power plants do that?

I know the conservatives on this board are going to jump all over me, but Nuclear power plants produce toxic waste that lasts forever. That is something concrete. Not a theory, not something that might happen, not something that we have to take the "climatologists" word. An actual real thing you can be sure happens every time you run a nuclear power plant more than a minute. The more nuclear power plants the more permanent highly toxic waste you accumulate.

Are you also aware that half the world’s population (some 3 Billion people) live in developing countries that are growing over ten percent a year? Do you have an idea what kind of "carbon footprint" that is going to make? You have three billion people (that is ten times the population of the United States) about to indulge in every Carbon producing activity that every US citizen engages in. Very soon, every carbon footprint the United States hasever made, or will make, will seem trivial. So to just keep the status quo (that is the status quo that these climatologists are predicting will bring a massive disaster) either China and India and the rest are going to have to institute massively expensive and growth inhibiting policy changes (and maybe monkeys will fly out of my ass), or the US will have to make up for their "Carbon foot print" by basically reducing our "carbon footprint" to zero. You don't think that will cause a little turmoil? From what I understand, even if we reduce our emissions to zero, we won’t make up for China and India’s increases in the next thirty years. If what the Climatologists are predicting is true, there is nothing “inconvenient” about it. It is a problem with a price tag that is too high to calculate. Gore, because he is running for president, and doesn’t believe this B.S. anyway, has tried to imply that the problem can be dealt with with only some minor inconveniences. That is like sending Johnny out with a hand pump to deal with a tsunami.


etft -- t.s.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm still wondering how he buys stock in an LLP.

Did anyone answer this? If they did I missed it. It is an excellent question.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Being called stupid by incredibly stupid people I generally take as a compliment.

Why?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why?

Camaraderie?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Mark Sanford, Republican Gov. of SC... what a fucking pussy.

Just put on some shorts already.

Exactly.

Or, if you're in San Francisco lately, a sweater.

A_heavy_sweater.