Outrage!!! Socialism!!!!!

[Nitrox]

Why do you think taht is?

 

Cause you're a closeted neocon atilla jackbooted regressive thug?

 

 

[j_b]

because I always call them on their bullshit, like I just did viz the "reducing the deficit" drivel.

 

the "whiny", "angry", "shrill" and other descriptives say more about those who write these words than about me.

"Flapping Cunt" fits too.

 

I rest my case.

[Nitrox]

because I always call them on their bullshit, like I just did viz the "reducing the deficit" drivel.

 

the "whiny", "angry", "shrill" and other descriptives say more about those who write these words than about me.

"Flapping Cunt" fits too.

 

I rest my case.

 

No you don't, you'll be back whining with the same drivel as you always do. You're a predictable one trick pony (whining ass bitch).

 

 

[ivan]

am I also supposed to bend over while the fucker calls me a whiny bitch? fuckwit!

 

YOu know what's weird? Politically, you and I are basically the same. Nitrox, FW, et.al. disagree with me just as much as you. And yet, they don't call me a whiny bitch.

 

Why do you think taht is?

b/c you look kinda like jesus and no one wants to make that kinda enemy?

[j_b]

don't you love the freaking meathead who appears to think that calling me a "whining ass bitch" constitutes a winning argument. Come on, that's highschool level posturing.

[Nitrox]

Well don't just sit there and cry, Sally.

 

 

[ivan]

don't you love the freaking meathead who appears to think that calling me a "whining ass bitch" constitutes a winning argument. Come on, that's highschool level posturing.

"They never grow up, lady. They just get tubby"

[j_b]

that's probably why retarded sport fans do the "you are a whining ass bitch" routine a lot. They get tubby and anybody who says something unflattering about their team gets the "what a whiner" treatment as if the critic were a weakling whose sexuality was in doubt.

[j_b]

Oh nooes! More socialism:

 

 

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid=6686284

[rob]

that's probably why retarded sport fans do the "you are a whining ass bitch" routine a lot. They get tubby and anybody who says something unflattering about their team gets the "what a whiner" treatment as if the critic were a weakling whose sexuality was in doubt.

 

there is nothing worse than someone who can dish it out but can't take it.

[rob]

Oh nooes! More socialism:

 

 

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid=6686284

 

You could probably change the colors from republican/democrat to populations, and the results would look the same. King County probably pays a lot more taxes than some podunk county in Eastern Wa, for example. And assuming every county is treated equally (probably not true), then the less populous ones would be getting a larger "share" since they didn't pay as much in. Duh.

 

Why don't we get rid of them already, anyway? The republicants over there would probably be much happier being part of Idaho. And, according to this chart, republicans are just costing us money.

 

Wait, if all those republicans became democrats, would they start paying more? Or, taking less? Is that the point? I'm confused.

 

Edited February 10, 2011 by rob

[j_b]

that's probably why retarded sport fans do the "you are a whining ass bitch" routine a lot. They get tubby and anybody who says something unflattering about their team gets the "what a whiner" treatment as if the critic were a weakling whose sexuality was in doubt.

 

there is nothing worse than someone who can dish it out but can't take it.

 

as if the last 8 years of verbal abuse and baiting by neanderthals was a sign of not being able to take it.

 

and no, I don't consider being told I am a "whiny bitch" a relevant answer to my disbelief of the right wing new found fervor for reducing deficits.

[prole]

...my disbelief of the right wing new found fervor for reducing deficits.

 

Dude, it's so they can Save the Children!!

[j_b]

You could probably change the colors from republican/democrat to populations, and the results would look the same. King County probably pays a lot more taxes than some podunk county in Eastern Wa, for example. And assuming every county is treated equally (probably not true), then the less populous ones would be getting a larger "share" since they didn't pay as much in. Duh.

 

Why don't we get rid of them already, anyway? The republicants over there would probably be much happier being part of Idaho. And, according to this chart, republicans are just costing us money.

 

Wait, if all those republicans became democrats, would they start paying more? Or, taking less? Is that the point? I'm confused.

 

did you bother reading the story, because it doesn't seem like it. The point is that people who need and benefit most from taxation are the people who vote against taxation.

[rob]

Well, our founding fathers didn't need no highways. Slaves and horses were good enough for them, they should be good enough for us. Sink or swim, I've always said.

 

What cracks me up the most is that Republicans are typically the bigest proponents of military spending (by far the BIGGEST chunk of our spending), but they argue we should cut taxes, give money back to the people, etc.

 

And then they have the audacity to point at democrats as "tax and spend" liberals.

 

Isn't tax and spend better than just SPEND?

Edited February 10, 2011 by rob

[rob]

To be fair, though, I don't think republicans typically are "against taxation" as much as they are "against waste." I think they would argue taxes could be lower if government were more efficient, and that should be dealt with first. I would arue, of course, that they're just findin an excuse for their selfishness.

 

Or, at least, that's kind of what I've come to assume -- it's burried underneath all that bullshit party politics and hyperbole that keeps everyone at each other's throats and destroys rational discussion on both sides of the aisle.

 

Imagine if people stopped to find common ground, instead of polarizing their opponents? Oops, I mean "opponents."

Edited February 10, 2011 by rob

[prole]

Yes, why can't we all just get along?

 

House Republicans Take E.P.A. Chief to Task

NYT 2/9/11

 

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans on Wednesday opened a formal assault on the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, raising doubts about the legal, scientific and economic basis of rules proposed by the agency.

 

The forum was a hearing convened by the energy and power subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to review the economic impact of pending limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. But much of the discussion focused instead on whether climate science supports the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to health and the environment; that finding is what makes the gases subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

 

Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, was subjected to more than two hours of questioning, some of it hostile, about proposed limits on emissions from factories, refineries, power plants and vehicles.

 

Republican lawmakers asserted that the science underpinning the regulatory effort was a hoax, questioned the agency’s interpretation of a Supreme Court decision giving it power to regulate carbon dioxide, and accused the Obama administration of sacrificing American jobs in its misplaced zeal to address climate change.

 

“The E.P.A. and the Obama administration have decided that they want to put the American economy in a straitjacket, costing us millions of jobs and billions of dollars a year,” Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, said in his opening remarks. “They couldn’t get it through the legislative process, so they’ve tried to do it by a regulatory approach. It’s not going to work.”

 

He later told Ms. Jackson that he was delighted she could appear before the committee and said that she should plan to be there frequently over the next two years.

 

Another Republican, Representative John Shimkus of Illinois, asked Ms. Jackson whether she believed in the law of supply and demand. Ms. Jackson, who holds a graduate degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University, replied, “I was trained in it.”

 

“But do you believe that as costs go up, supply goes down?” Mr. Shimkus demanded.

 

“It depends on the elasticity of the cost curve,” Ms. Jackson responded.

 

A third Republican questioner, Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, asked Ms. Jackson facetiously if she liked puppies. She started to answer that she did, provided that they were properly housebroken. Mr. Terry sharply interrupted, saying he was only mocking the gentle questions that Democrats were asking to elicit rehearsed answers.

 

Ms. Jackson repeated her now-familiar defense of greenhouse gas regulation at the hearing, saying that cleaning up the environment would not only improve health but also create jobs.

 

She said the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, obliged the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions endangered human health and welfare. Ms. Jackson said that both the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration had concluded that the emissions do so.

 

And she strenuously objected to a bill introduced last week by two top Republicans on the committee, Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan and Edward Whitfield of Kentucky, seeking to overturn that court decision and thwart the agency’s efforts to carry it out.

 

“Chairman Upton’s bill is part of an effort to delay, weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public,” Ms. Jackson said in her opening statement. “Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, repeal the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question — that would become part of this committee’s legacy.”

 

Mr. Upton said that his bill, called the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, was narrowly drawn to restrict agency regulation only of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, not the other air pollutants that have been shown to have more direct effects on health.

 

He said that regulating carbon dioxide emissions would make the most abundant fuels prohibitively expensive to use, and would put American manufacturers at a disadvantage compared with industries in countries that have no such rules.

 

“Needless to say,” Mr. Upton said, “the Chinese government and other competitors have no intention of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way E.P.A. plans to do here in America. Our goal should be to export goods, not jobs.”

[rob]

I don't understand the right's constant refusal to accept the scientific fact of climate chane. It's weird

 

But, that article is really a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Since it's hard to understand their position, you can make two logical assumptions:

 

1) They are criminally insane -- i.e. they secretely know they're destroying the environment in exchange for higher profits

or

2) they really DON'T believe in climate change, hence their passion -- and they sincerely believe it's the "liburuls" that are actually consciously trying to destroy this country, and so they are "fighting back."

 

I think #2 is more likely, and when you frame the argument that way, you realize these guys are hopelessly misguided, but that they're americans just like you and me. I sincerely believe that most people on the right ACTUALLY THINK they're doing what's best for this country. Their intentions are not bad. So, maybe you can frame them as stupid, or misguided, or whatever, but I don't think that's a very productive way to address the problem.

 

If everybody accuses the other side of being anti-american and of destroying our country, nothing will ever get done, because in reality, neither side is really trying to do that.

 

Edited February 10, 2011 by rob

[j_b]

The forum was a hearing convened by the energy and power subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

 

"Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the [House Energy and Commerce Committee], ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.

 

Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity — to oppose the Obama administration's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Of the six GOP freshman lawmakers on the panel, five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign.

 

Claiming an electoral mandate, Republicans on the committee have launched an agenda of the sort long backed by the Koch brothers. A top early goal: restricting the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Kochs' core energy businesses."

Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power

[j_b]

I think #2 is more likely, and when you frame the argument that way, you realize these guys are hopelessly misguided, but that they're americans just like you and me. I sincerely believe that most people on the right ACTUALLY THINK they're doing what's best for this country. Their intentions are not bad. So, maybe you can frame them as stupid, or misguided, or whatever, but I don't think that's a very productive way to address the problem.

 

If everybody accuses the other side of being anti-american and of destroying our country, nothing will ever get done, because in reality, neither side is really trying to do that.

 

 

Someone in their position with half an once of honesty would acknowledge they know fuck all about climate and stfu instead of regurgitating propaganda fed to them by the fossil fuel industry. Dude, and you still wonder why the neanderthals here don't call you a "whiny bitch"? Sheesh!

[billcoe]

Name one government program with guaranteed rapid pay back that actually rapidly paid back? The Portland metro train is a shining example of a guaranteed cost savings turning into a black hole of spending.

 

The Federal investment on the Columbia River dam system was HUGE at that time, and it was all paid back and has been both a huge money maker and generator of many ancillary business's for many years until recently. There's one for you, and its a big one.

 

I'm not agreeing that this is a good investment, and I'd agree with you that it is critical to the long term health of our country to get out spending (military in particular) under control.

[rob]

Can you really expect someone to know what they don't know?

[tvashtarkatena]

Chrysler bailout

[j_b]

Can you really expect someone to know what they don't know?

 

they don't know who is paying them to win? they don't know they are doing this because they are anti-regulation while they know nothing of climate science?

[prole]

I don't understand the right's constant refusal to accept the scientific fact of climate chane. It's weird

 

But, that article is really a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Since it's hard to understand their position, you can make two logical assumptions:

 

1) They are criminally insane -- i.e. they secretely know they're destroying the environment in exchange for higher profits

or

2) they really DON'T believe in climate change, hence their passion -- and they sincerely believe it's the "liburuls" that are actually consciously trying to destroy this country, and so they are "fighting back."

 

I think #2 is more likely, and when you frame the argument that way, you realize these guys are hopelessly misguided, but that they're americans just like you and me. I sincerely believe that most people on the right ACTUALLY THINK they're doing what's best for this country. Their intentions are not bad. So, maybe you can frame them as stupid, or misguided, or whatever, but I don't think that's a very productive way to address the problem.

 

If everybody accuses the other side of being anti-american and of destroying our country, nothing will ever get done, because in reality, neither side is really trying to do that.

 

 

Is this "Celebrate Naivety Day" or did I get skipped in the toke circle again? We're still reeling from a financial crisis caused by investment banks reaping billions by knowingly selling junk paper and betting against their own customers. The fossil fuel industry is one of dozens that hires "scientists" and lobbyists to knowingly spread misinformation about the impacts of its practices. Corporations are not people and the calculus of profit and growth they're ruled by more often than not doesn't include the kind moral/ethical consciousness or intention you're applying here.