Chuckleheaded Editorial

[TAFBSooner]

Death of conservatism has been greatly overstated (http://newsok.com/j.e.-mcreynolds-death-of-conservatism-has-been-greatly-overstated/article/3808459)

Go on, Republicans. Get rid of your chuckleheads - please! Measured by votes instead of dollars, they are probably the majority of your party.

[okie52]

Heh heh...from the party of science.

[yermom]

as much as Romney tried to Etch-A-Sketch his policies, he still looked pretty looney. and inconsistent as well.

pubs already have the looney fringe vote, so why bother putting someone out to pander to them?

[okie52]

Looney fringe vote....none of that with dems.

[yermom]

But you don't have to be on the fringe to pick Obama over Romney

[Turd_Ferguson]

But you don't have to be on the fringe to pick Obama over Romney

You're right, you just have to want to vote for somebody with no experience because he's black...

[TAFBSooner]

Looney fringe vote....none of that with dems.

Sure there is.

The vast majority of liberals voters wants to keep and strengthen Social Security, and Obama and establishment Dems keep trying to cut it.

Which side is the loony fringe?

[yermom]

A sitting president has no experience? That line is getting a bit tired

[Turd_Ferguson]

A sitting president has no experience? That line is getting a bit tired

A bit tired? I'd say that his inexperience has been showing for quite some time. Like maybe, since he's been in office.

[okie52]

But you don't have to be on the fringe to pick Obama over Romney

Romney voters were all fringers? Is that like all obama voters don't pay taxes?

[okie52]

Sure there is.

The vast majority of liberals voters wants to keep and strengthen Social Security, and Obama and establishment Dems keep trying to cut it.

Which side is the loony fringe?

Conservatives want to delay qualifying for 2-3 years to promote solvency...wacky folks.

Liberals want cap and trade and to ban drilling in 2 oceans while we spend over $400,000,000,000 on imported oil...to them it makes perfect sense

[TAFBSooner]

Romney voters were all fringers? Is that like all obama voters don't pay taxes?

You're mixing raspberries and blueberries. Yermom was talking about fringe/non-fringe Democrats.

Romney voters were mostly non-fringers.

Romney's vote was strongest among establishment Republicans / fiscal conservatives. The cultural conservatives sat on their hands in the general election. Our Colorado Springs-owned paper represents the Republican establishment, which is rightfully (from the point of view of Republican political success) complaining about Republican Senate candidates claiming that rape is God's plan.

[TAFBSooner]

Conservatives want to delay qualifying for 2-3 years to promote solvency...wacky folks.


That makes great sense if your job is sitting on boards and commissions. Not so much if you do physical work for 49 years.

You could solve any shortage that Social Security might have over the next 20 - 100 years by raising (not eliminating) the earnings limit on contributions. You could do a great service to the truth if you admit that Social Security is not causing any of the budget deficit.

[TAFBSooner]

Liberals want cap and trade and to ban drilling in 2 oceans while we spend over $400,000,000,000 on imported oil...to them it makes perfect sense

Conservatives are willing to degrade or destroy our whole life support system in order to maintain the economic system which keeps them in control.

[Turd_Ferguson]

That makes great sense if your job is sitting on boards and commissions. Not so much if you do physical work for 49 years.

You could solve any shortage that Social Security might have over the next 20 - 100 years by raising (not eliminating) the earnings limit on contributions. You could do a great service to the truth if you admit that Social Security is not causing any of the budget deficit.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say...you're a ****'n moron.

[C&CDean]

Indisputable fact: Liberals are twisted, confused, and quite possibly mentally retarded. How else can one explain the **** they say/do/feel? Anyone who will say Obama is anything more than a POS wigger is pretty much a dumb****. It is what it is. Supporting him after the first election was semi-admirable. Supporting him now borders on complete and total brain death.

[okie52]

That makes great sense if your job is sitting on boards and commissions. Not so much if you do physical work for 49 years.

You could solve any shortage that Social Security might have over the next 20 - 100 years by raising (not eliminating) the earnings limit on contributions. You could do a great service to the truth if you admit that Social Security is not causing any of the budget deficit.

It makes great sense anyway. Life expectancy is now over 80 and when SS was implemented it was a little over 60. To push back 2-3 on the qualifying is reasonable. I also don't have a problem pushing out the earnings limit to keep it solvent. I also would want to see legislation that prevented future raids on SS.

Ummm, future entitlements are the largest source of our projected budget deficits in the future.

[okie52]

Conservatives are willing to degrade or destroy our whole life support system in order to maintain the economic system which keeps them in control.

Heh, that makes sense to you? Really? By all means please explain.

[TAFBSooner]

Well, I'm calling it a good night. I get one person who didn't address anything I said, and one who figures that me ragging on Obama for wanting to cut Social Security is equivalent to me supporting Obama. :rolleyes:

Manana, todos.

[okie52]

Well, crap, no explanation for conservatives wanting to destroy our whole life support system...

[sappstuf]

That makes great sense if your job is sitting on boards and commissions. Not so much if you do physical work for 49 years.

You could solve any shortage that Social Security might have over the next 20 - 100 years by raising (not eliminating) the earnings limit on contributions. You could do a great service to the truth if you admit that Social Security is not causing any of the budget deficit.

Social Security is in the red. It is paying more out than revenue comes in. Where exactly do you believe that money comes from to cover the shortfall? It isn't from pixie dust and unicorn horns.

Some things in the government are difficult. Simple math isn't one of them.

Don't be a Dick.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Durbin.

Be a little smarter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A bit tired? I'd say that his inexperience has been showing for quite some time. Like maybe, since he's been in office.His socialist ideas have shown for a very long time, as has His desire to screw America.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, crap, no explanation for conservatives wanting to destroy our whole life support system...I was curious about that as well. Do conservatives want to putrify the air so we can't breathe, or halt production of food, or poison the water everywhere, or is it all the above?

[KantoSooner]

I got here late. Any comment on the article? Paraphrased: There are more conservatives out there than were evident during the last election. Most of them are characterized by a more libertarian point of view than was represented by the Republican Party's candidates. Solution: move to a more socially liberal set of policies and the Reps are well positioned to return to power; though it's not guaranteed.

Is there any challenging those conclusions? Looks pretty much like what virtually every sentient observer has been saying since mid-November.

[TAFBSooner]

Well, crap, no explanation for conservatives wanting to destroy our whole life support system...

I had a better offer.

The Earth is our life support system. Our economic system is a subset of the Earth, and is wholly dependent on the resources we get from it. It can't replace what the Earth gives us over the long run.

We are damaging our life support system by spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, among other sorts of pollution and damage. Conservatives are willing to do this for the sake of the $400 billion of which you speak, and in fact for the sake of our whole economic system.

I said "willing to," not "want to." That implies that conservatives think that severe degradation of our life support system is a worthwhile trade-off to keep our economic system running. It doesn't mean that they actively want to destroy it.

OBTW, I am fully aware that wind and solar won't ever totally replace fossil fuels. We need nuclear power, although that runs into limits on fissionable materials. Fusion power has been "thirty years away" ever since I learned about it. We need wind, solar, and nukes (and more NG, less coal) to buy us time until we develop some other form of energy. And that last implies science, for which we need to increase funding and encourage young people to study.

In the meantime, we need to accept that climate change is happening, not bury our heads in the sand because we "can't afford" to fix it.

[TAFBSooner]

It makes great sense anyway. Life expectancy is now over 80 and when SS was implemented it was a little over 60. To push back 2-3 on the qualifying is reasonable. I also don't have a problem pushing out the earnings limit to keep it solvent. I also would want to see legislation that prevented future raids on SS.

All that life expectancy doesn't help when your body is too worn out to work another 3 years. FWIW, Obama isn't putting later qualifying on the table, he is trying to cut the way inflation is measured in order to cut future payments. In a bit of irony, House Republicans are saving our Social Security from Obama, at least for now.


Ummm, future entitlements are the largest source of our projected budget deficits in the future.

Social Security is an earned benefit. It is not contributing to our general fund deficit. Social Security depends on the money it has loaned to the general fund since the Reagan-era "fix" for SS. (BTW, that legislation would have been a permanent solution if the economic gains since that time had been distributed to labor and capital at the same rate as they had been for the post-war era up to that time. Instead labor got nada, and therefore had less money to contribute to SS.) Yes, the money to repay those bonds comes from income taxes. I believe the government should honor those bonds at least at the same priority it gives to propping up Wall Street banks. Welching on Social Security is just as bad as welching on any other debt.

Medicare is an earned benefit. It has a huge impact on the deficit. But because it is expensive, and you can lump it in with Social Security by miscalling them both "entitlements," doesn't mean that Social Security is causing the budget deficit.

Medicaid is an entitlement - you can get it without having worked a single day.

[TAFBSooner]

Social Security is in the red. It is paying more out than revenue comes in. Where exactly do you believe that money comes from to cover the shortfall? It isn't from pixie dust and unicorn horns.

Some things in the government are difficult. Simple math isn't one of them.

Don't be a Dick.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Durbin.

Be a little smarter.

Reagan and O'Neill cut Social Security payments such that income would exceed payments for some period of time beginning in the 1980's. That excess was invested in government bonds. Now the bonds are due. We had the benefit of that money over time, and now have to pay it back. Now is not the time to whine about doing so. Your party is going to make sure Wall Street gets its due, aren't you?

[diverdog]

Indisputable fact: Liberals are twisted, confused, and quite possibly mentally retarded. How else can one explain the **** they say/do/feel? Anyone who will say Obama is anything more than a POS wigger is pretty much a dumb****. It is what it is. Supporting him after the first election was semi-admirable. Supporting him now borders on complete and total brain death.

Dean:

I would have voted for Romney if he had not done so much sabre rattling over Iran. I honestly believe he would attack them and draw us into an unwinnable war and destroying our treasury in the process. Having two sons I do not want them to fight another war in the ME. So my vote was selfish.

[okie52]

I had a better offer.

The Earth is our life support system. Our economic system is a subset of the Earth, and is wholly dependent on the resources we get from it. It can't replace what the Earth gives us over the long run.

We are damaging our life support system by spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, among other sorts of pollution and damage. Conservatives are willing to do this for the sake of the $400 billion of which you speak, and in fact for the sake of our whole economic system.

I said "willing to," not "want to." That implies that conservatives think that severe degradation of our life support system is a worthwhile trade-off to keep our economic system running. It doesn't mean that they actively want to destroy it.

OBTW, I am fully aware that wind and solar won't ever totally replace fossil fuels. We need nuclear power, although that runs into limits on fissionable materials. Fusion power has been "thirty years away" ever since I learned about it. We need wind, solar, and nukes (and more NG, less coal) to buy us time until we develop some other form of energy. And that last implies science, for which we need to increase funding and encourage young people to study.

In the meantime, we need to accept that climate change is happening, not bury our heads in the sand because we "can't afford" to fix it.

I don't really know where to begin TAFB...your argument is lacking reality.

We will use that $400,000,000,000 in oil-whether we import the oil for transportation or produce it ourselves. The difference is that the money stays here in the US and so do the jobs, royalties and tax revenues associated with it. Think $400,000,000,000 might help on the job front, GDP and our deficit?

And the dems don't really care about the environment either. They just want to disempower the oil and gas industry.

Take cap and trade and its sponsor Ed Markey...soon to be the next senator from that bastion of pragmatism, Massachusetts. Cap and trade was passed by the dem house in May of 2009...the height of the recession. NG was to be punished and taxed at 22%, Oil at 33% and coal at 44%. This was a unilateral measure that would have only punished the US energy producers and consumers. Absolutely no mention was made of nukes and ethanol was named a favored fuel source. This measure would have been devastating to the economy but fortunately it never got through the senate.

2 years later Markey tried to ban exports of NG (LNG/CNG) to foreign markets like Japan and China where it was going for $16-18 an MCF declaring that NG gave the US a competitive advantange over other countries. This from the same guy that was going to tax it at 22% and only on US consumers and producers. Brilliant!!!! Not only that but it would have provided China with NG instead of coal which would have helped the world's environment and, as I'm sure you must be aware, we all share that same biosphere. It won't make much difference what the US does if China and INdia aren't on board...and they aren't as they are building a new coal plant every week and they aren't going to give up their coal.

Ironically US CO2 levels dropped by 20% primarily due to companies converting to NG...far lower than what Obama's cap and trade would have required by 2020 and without the economic devastation cap and trade would have brought with it.!!!

These same Liberals and Obama shut down funding for Yucca as our national repository...a repository that had been approved and funded by 4 different presidents and 13 different congresses. How much CO2 do nukes produce? It isn't the conservatives that are fighting against nukes...Again, Brilliant!!!

Obama is now on year 5 and what has he done promote NG? Any move to help transportation convert to NG? Federal leasing has been at an all time low under Obama. And, of course, he banned exploration in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...but who needs that oil and gas anyway...we'd rather pay someone else $400,000,000,000 every year for theirs.

There isn't angst among conservatives about gradually weaning ourselves off of hydrocarbons when there are realistic energy alternatives but right now that doesn't exist. But the party of science doesn't care and would needlessly trash our economy for some fantasy fuels/energy alternatives that may not exist for another 30-50 years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I got here late. Any comment on the article? Paraphrased: There are more conservatives out there than were evident during the last election. Most of them are characterized by a more libertarian point of view than was represented by the Republican Party's candidates. Solution: move to a more socially liberal set of policies and the Reps are well positioned to return to power; though it's not guaranteed.

Is there any challenging those conclusions? Looks pretty much like what virtually every sentient observer has been saying since mid-November.The fundamental philosophy so many people have in common is economic conservatism. All on the Right should emphasize this, and approach traditional social values(Christian and Jewish) as side issues, not nearly as important as being unified against the socialist authoritarianism of the Left. The Left and their Media will go after traditional social values at every opportunity. It becomes a big story because the Media makes it that. Conservatives should be willing to identify and cast aside the game of divide and conquer that is being played by the Left.

[okie52]

All that life expectancy doesn't help when your body is too worn out to work another 3 years. FWIW, Obama isn't putting later qualifying on the table, he is trying to cut the way inflation is measured in order to cut future payments. In a bit of irony, House Republicans are saving our Social Security from Obama, at least for now.



Social Security is an earned benefit. It is not contributing to our general fund deficit. Social Security depends on the money it has loaned to the general fund since the Reagan-era "fix" for SS. (BTW, that legislation would have been a permanent solution if the economic gains since that time had been distributed to labor and capital at the same rate as they had been for the post-war era up to that time. Instead labor got nada, and therefore had less money to contribute to SS.) Yes, the money to repay those bonds comes from income taxes. I believe the government should honor those bonds at least at the same priority it gives to propping up Wall Street banks. Welching on Social Security is just as bad as welching on any other debt.

Medicare is an earned benefit. It has a huge impact on the deficit. But because it is expensive, and you can lump it in with Social Security by miscalling them both "entitlements," doesn't mean that Social Security is causing the budget deficit.

Medicaid is an entitlement - you can get it without having worked a single day.

Oh good grief...the body has worn out? I guess they will have to start SS at an earlier, reduced rate.

I'll call them all entitlements if what people put into the system doesn't equal what is being taken out...particularly with Medicare and Medicaid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/cost-entitlements-future-generations-facing-likely-tax-hikes-to-make-up-35t/

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...We are damaging our life support system by spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, among other sorts of pollution and damage. Conservatives are willing to do this for the sake of the $400 billion of which you speak, and in fact for the sake of our whole economic system.

...I said "willing to," not "want to." That implies that conservatives think that severe degradation of our life support system is a worthwhile trade-off to keep our economic system running. It doesn't mean that they actively want to destroy it.



In the meantime, we need to accept that climate change is happening, not bury our heads in the sand because we "can't afford" to fix it.and, we should also note that you believe in the above, as do many if not most on the Left. That it has been ground into the brain for many years. It is very hard for people to admit to being conned, and to think they have been wrong for a long time. Not a surprise.

[rock on sooner]

So, RLIMC, just to be clear, you do NOT believe in climate change.
Is that correct?

[KantoSooner]

The fundamental philosophy so many people have in common is economic conservatism. All on the Right should emphasize this, and approach traditional social values(Christian and Jewish) as side issues, not nearly as important as being unified against the socialist authoritarianism of the Left. The Left and their Media will go after traditional social values at every opportunity. It becomes a big story because the Media makes it that. Conservatives should be willing to identify and cast aside the game of divide and conquer that is being played by the Left.

We don't agree on much, but on this we can skip through a flowery meadow together. The real core of conservatism is the radical notion that human beings mostly know what is best for themselves and that government should exist to keep enough order for us to live together in an acceptable degree of peace.
So, let's get down to making our government do less and spend less and interfere less.
And I promise to turn down the music during my Sunday morning sex/drug/perversion festivals. It's only neighborly.

Quite seriously, government has no, as in zero role in legislating social mores, no matter how traditional. That's up to individuals to decide for themselves. If you choose to adopt the social teachings of desert herding tribes of 3,000 years ago, I may give you a Spock eyebrow, but it's up to you (so long as you ditch the traditional values of stoning and enslavement, and a few others).

If the Republicans would lay off the attempted legislation of personal behavior, they'd win in a landslide for the foreseeable future.

[sappstuf]

Reagan and O'Neill cut Social Security payments such that income would exceed payments for some period of time beginning in the 1980's. That excess was invested in government bonds. Now the bonds are due. We had the benefit of that money over time, and now have to pay it back. Now is not the time to whine about doing so. Your party is going to make sure Wall Street gets its due, aren't you?

So where is that money coming from now and how is it not adding to the deficit?

[pphilfran]

So where is that money coming from now and how is it not adding to the deficit?

When revenue is lower than spending then the special issue bonds will need to be sold off to raise the needed cash...

The special issue bonds cannot be sold on the open market so we sell them to ourselves...

So we spent the money when it came in to make the budget look better due to the excess revenue...issued bonds to ourselves...paid ourselves interest on the bonds that we sold ourselves...and then when revenue is needed we sell the bonds back to ourselves...

Simple...

[sappstuf]

When revenue is lower than spending then the special issue bonds will need to be sold off to raise the needed cash...

The special issue bonds cannot be sold on the open market so we sell them to ourselves...

So we spent the money when it came in to make the budget look better due to the excess revenue...issued bonds to ourselves...paid ourselves interest on the bonds that we sold ourselves...and then when revenue is needed we sell the bonds back to ourselves...

Simple...

It sounds like the government doesn't even need tax revenue... It is a perpetual motion money machine!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If the Republicans would lay off the attempted legislation of personal behavior, they'd win in a landslide for the foreseeable future.The BIGGEST problem the republicans have there is that if personal behavior lesgislation was PROPERLY understood as relatively insignificant when compared to the ENORMOUSLY heinous act of authoritarian socialism, most of us would enjoy the proper perspective to determine how we should vote. IOW, for people to become as incensed or even more incensed about some legislator's attempt to enact a moral law, when compared to the entire agenda of the democrat party that provides massively enlarged governmental power, and control of our very lives, is alarming and severely detrimental to the true health of the country.

[okie52]

When revenue is lower than spending then the special issue bonds will need to be sold off to raise the needed cash...

The special issue bonds cannot be sold on the open market so we sell them to ourselves...

So we spent the money when it came in to make the budget look better due to the excess revenue...issued bonds to ourselves...paid ourselves interest on the bonds that we sold ourselves...and then when revenue is needed we sell the bonds back to ourselves...

Simple...

Don't people go to jail for doing that?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Don't people go to jail for doing that?yes! The govt. holds a unique, special place in society.

[KantoSooner]

I value my personal liberty as much or more than I value my bank account. Must I choose between handing the keys over to a group of beetle-browed church elders or to a gaggle of social engineers with a bad track record of lashing out in frustration if they don't get their way?
How 'bout we opt for neither?

I never changed. The Republican Party did. I think there are a lot of people like me. And that's likely why the pubs have gone from looking like they'd never lose again to looking like they may never host another event in the WH ever.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I value my personal liberty as much or more than I value my bank account. Must I choose between handing the keys over to a group of beetle-browed church elders or to a gaggle of social engineers with a bad track record of lashing out in frustration if they don't get their way?
How 'bout we opt for neither?

I never changed. The Republican Party did. I think there are a lot of people like me. And that's likely why the pubs have gone from looking like they'd never lose again to looking like they may never host another event in the WH ever.IOW, many, including yourself, are satisfied to allow the authoritarian socialism we are settling into. You think this situation allows you personal liberty. This is not a surprise.

[TAFBSooner]

The fundamental philosophy so many people have in common is economic conservatism. All on the Right should emphasize this, and approach traditional social values(Christian and Jewish) as side issues, not nearly as important as being unified against the socialist authoritarianism of the Left. The Left and their Media will go after traditional social values at every opportunity. It becomes a big story because the Media makes it that. Conservatives should be willing to identify and cast aside the game of divide and conquer that is being played by the Left.

Head for your nearest fundamentalist church next Sunday and see how far that gets you.

To the extent my politics is dependent on cheering for "my" "team," it's entertaining to watch the Republican intra-party civil war. There are just as many, probably more, folks who are in it for the social issues. There are some people who will "walk" over abortion, some over gay marriage, and some over immigration. Those people are just as real conservatives as you economic conservatives.

The 1% are the real masters of divide and conquer, or I should say keep divided and maintain control. They do it between the working and middle classes, among the races, and for sure between Democrats and Republicans.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

To the extent my politics is dependent on cheering for "my" "team," it's entertaining to watch the Republican intra-party civil war. There are just as many, probably more, folks who are in it for the social issues. There are some people who will "walk" over abortion, some over gay marriage, and some over immigration. Those people are just as real conservatives as you economic conservatives.

The 1% are the real masters of divide and conquer, or I should say keep divided and maintain control. They do it between the working and middle classes, among the races, and for sure between Democrats and Republicans.Illegal Immigration is not a social issue. It's about breaking the citizenship and immigration laws of the country. The Media does a thorough enough job of keeping people divided and angry with republicans. It's a shame for the country that more folks don't see what they're doing, in order to advance an ignoble and destructive cause. Socialism, and all that goes with it.

[TAFBSooner]

I don't really know where to begin TAFB...your argument is lacking reality.

We will use that $400,000,000,000 in oil-whether we import the oil for transportation or produce it ourselves. The difference is that the money stays here in the US and so do the jobs, royalties and tax revenues associated with it. Think $400,000,000,000 might help on the job front, GDP and our deficit?

And the dems don't really care about the environment either. They just want to disempower the oil and gas industry.

Take cap and trade and its sponsor Ed Markey...soon to be the next senator from that bastion of pragmatism, Massachusetts. Cap and trade was passed by the dem house in May of 2009...the height of the recession. NG was to be punished and taxed at 22%, Oil at 33% and coal at 44%. This was a unilateral measure that would have only punished the US. Absolutely no mention was made of nukes and ethanol was named a favored fuel source. This measure would have been devastating to the economy but fortunately it never got through the senate.

2 years later Markey tried to ban exports of NG (LNG/CNG) to foreign markets like Japan and China where it was going for $16-18 an MCF declaring that NG gave the US a competitive advantange over other countries. This from the same guy that was going to tax it at 22% and only on US consumers and producers. Brilliant!!!! Not only that but it would have provided China with NG instead of coal which would have helped the world's environment and, as I'm sure you must be aware, we all share that same biosphere. It won't make much difference what the US does if China and INdia aren't on board...and they aren't as they are building a new coal plant every week and they aren't going to give up their coal.

Ironically US CO2 levels dropped by 20% primarily due to companies converting to NG...far lower than what Obama's cap and trade would have required by 2020 and without the economic devastation cap and trade would have brought with it.!!!

These same Liberals and Obama shut down funding for Yucca as our national repository...a repository that had been approved and funded by 4 different presidents and 13 different congresses. How much CO2 do nukes produce? It isn't the conservatives that are fighting against nukes...Again, Brilliant!!!

Obama is now on year 5 and what has he done promote NG? Any move to help transportation convert to NG? Federal leasing has been at an all time low under Obama. And, of course, he banned exploration in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...but who needs that oil and gas anyway...we'd rather pay someone else $400,000,000,000 every year for theirs.

There isn't angst among conservatives about gradually weaning ourselves off of hydrocarbons when there are realistic energy alternatives but right now that doesn't exist. But the party of science doesn't care and would needlessly trash our economy for some fantasy fuels/energy alternatives that may not exist for another 30-50 years.

Climate change demands hard choices. Fission plants are one of them. Yucca Mountain wasn't perfect, but irradiating the water table under mostly un-used desert beats losing all those coastal cities (I'd say excepting Wall Street in Manhattan, but we all know they have plans B, C, and on up to Zed). In the 21st century, environmentalists are wrong to oppose fission.

Using the $400 billion worth of oil is what I mean by maintaining our economic system at the cost of our life support system. Neither of the establishment parties will admit that, or admit that maintaining the biosphere is more important than maintaining the economy.

I'm in favor of using more NG and less coal and oil. That's another hard choice, because fracking damages the local environment, the CO2 emission still contribute to climate change, and (crutch argument) we get to maintain our denial of climate change for a while longer. OTOH, the jobs and money stay here, the troops stay home, we don't fund madrassas or radicalize more Muslims, NG puts out less CO2 than other fossil fuels, and (bridge argument) we get a little longer to find a way to live with less cheap energy. Incidentally, part of the drop in CO2 emissions was due to the economic free fall starting in 2008.

Democrats do a ****-poor job of addressing climate change. At the least, they don't call it a hoax.

If I read you right, you accept that climate change is happening, but you say we can't afford to do very much about it. That's what I'm talking about in putting our economy over our life support system. The political reality is that there is not the political will to address climate change. I know that, but politics is another subsystem of our biosphere.

OBTW, if it isn't clear I'm not an Obama fan. I voted Kucinich, then Obama in 08 and Ron Paul, then Obama last year. Obama is less bad than "bomb, bomb Iran" or the Wall Street dude.

[TAFBSooner]

Illegal Immigration is not a social issue. It's about breaking the citizenship and immigration laws of the country. The Media does a thorough enough job of keeping people divided and angry with republicans. It's a shame for the country that more folks don't see what they're doing, in order to advance an ignoble and destructive cause. Socialism, and all that goes with it.

Put the immigration issue on your side of the RCW (Republican Civil War). My argument stands without it.

Privatized gain for the 1%, socialized losses to be borne by everyone else. So sure, in that sense the 1%'s program, aided and abetted by the corporate media, is socialism. I think a better term is authoritarianism.

[sappstuf]

Climate change demands hard choices. Fission plants are one of them. Yucca Mountain wasn't perfect, but irradiating the water table under mostly un-used desert beats losing all those coastal cities (I'd say excepting Wall Street in Manhattan, but we all know they have plans B, C, and on up to Zed). In the 21st century, environmentalists are wrong to oppose fission.

Using the $400 billion worth of oil is what I mean by maintaining our economic system at the cost of our life support system. Neither of the establishment parties will admit that, or admit that maintaining the biosphere is more important than maintaining the economy.

I'm in favor of using more NG and less coal and oil. That's another hard choice, because fracking damages the local environment, the CO2 emission still contribute to climate change, and (crutch argument) we get to maintain our denial of climate change for a while longer. OTOH, the jobs and money stay here, the troops stay home, we don't fund madrassas or radicalize more Muslims, NG puts out less CO2 than other fossil fuels, and (bridge argument) we get a little longer to find a way to live with less cheap energy. Incidentally, part of the drop in CO2 emissions was due to the economic free fall starting in 2008.

Democrats do a ****-poor job of addressing climate change. At the least, they don't call it a hoax.

If I read you right, you accept that climate change is happening, but you say we can't afford to do very much about it. That's what I'm talking about in putting our economy over our life support system. The political reality is that there is not the political will to address climate change. I know that, but politics is another subsystem of our biosphere.

OBTW, if it isn't clear I'm not an Obama fan. I voted Kucinich, then Obama in 08 and Ron Paul, then Obama last year. Obama is less bad than "bomb, bomb Iran" or the Wall Street dude.

Show me exactly where the drop in CO2 can be found on this chart?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

It appears the global economic downturn didn't phase the rise in CO2. It is almost like something else is at work here and not CO2 produced by humans...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...something else is at work here and not CO2 produced by humans...Crap Storm, produced by the Left, and it never ends.

[TAFBSooner]

Show me exactly where the drop in CO2 can be found on this chart?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

It appears the global economic downturn didn't phase the rise in CO2. It is almost like something else is at work here and not CO2 produced by humans...

http://grist.org/climate-policy/u-s-leads-the-world-in-cutting-co2-emissions-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-it/

http://www.livescience.com/22494-carbon-dioxide-emissions-plummet.html

[sappstuf]

http://grist.org/climate-policy/u-s-leads-the-world-in-cutting-co2-emissions-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-it/

http://www.livescience.com/22494-carbon-dioxide-emissions-plummet.html

Thank you for making my point. Cutting CO2 emissions didn't do a thing for the global average. Nothing. Neither did the huge economic downturn starting in 2007. If humans are the cause of the higher CO2 average, shouldn't the CO2 average go up and down in relation to our global economic output and retractions?

Instead it is a steady climb up regardless of what humans are doing for the past 50 years. Why?

[TAFBSooner]

Thank you for making my point. Cutting CO2 emissions didn't do a thing for the global average. Nothing. Neither did the huge economic downturn starting in 2007. If humans are the cause of the higher CO2 average, shouldn't the CO2 average go up and down in relation to our global economic output and retractions?

Instead it is a steady climb up regardless of what humans are doing for the past 50 years. Why?

That's a very good question. Once possible answer is that once we got it started, reinforcing feedback loops are keeping it going. Things like less sea ice in the Arctic means more absorption of heat, melting more ice. Or thawing methane deposits release methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2.

So we started it, now it's working on its own, and we probably can't do a whole heck of a lot to stop it.

Which begs the question, why am I wasting my time talking politics, while there are still beautiful days outside to enjoy?

Later.

[okie52]

Climate change demands hard choices. Fission plants are one of them. Yucca Mountain wasn't perfect, but irradiating the water table under mostly un-used desert beats losing all those coastal cities (I'd say excepting Wall Street in Manhattan, but we all know they have plans B, C, and on up to Zed). In the 21st century, environmentalists are wrong to oppose fission.

Using the $400 billion worth of oil is what I mean by maintaining our economic system at the cost of our life support system. Neither of the establishment parties will admit that, or admit that maintaining the biosphere is more important than maintaining the economy.

I'm in favor of using more NG and less coal and oil. That's another hard choice, because fracking damages the local environment, the CO2 emission still contribute to climate change, and (crutch argument) we get to maintain our denial of climate change for a while longer. OTOH, the jobs and money stay here, the troops stay home, we don't fund madrassas or radicalize more Muslims, NG puts out less CO2 than other fossil fuels, and (bridge argument) we get a little longer to find a way to live with less cheap energy. Incidentally, part of the drop in CO2 emissions was due to the economic free fall starting in 2008.

Democrats do a ****-poor job of addressing climate change. At the least, they don't call it a hoax.

If I read you right, you accept that climate change is happening, but you say we can't afford to do very much about it. That's what I'm talking about in putting our economy over our life support system. The political reality is that there is not the political will to address climate change. I know that, but politics is another subsystem of our biosphere.

OBTW, if it isn't clear I'm not an Obama fan. I voted Kucinich, then Obama in 08 and Ron Paul, then Obama last year. Obama is less bad than "bomb, bomb Iran" or the Wall Street dude.




The National Academy of Science declared Yucca safe for 10,000 years, 9 US Science labs and Obama's own energy secretary Chu supported Yucca just months before he was named Secretary of Energy. I was hoping the party of "science" would be a little more scientific as well as most enviros that are clueless about achieving their own mission.

It is not just the US biosphere but it is the world biosphere when we talk about "climate change". It does little good for the US to reduce its CO2 output when over 1/3 of the world's population is greatly increasing theirs as in China and India. And certainly going it alone is a catastrophic endeavor with regard to our own economy particularly when its effects would be minimal on global CO2 reduction.

Dems don't call AGW a hoax, it is a religion for them regardless of when the facts don't support them or are undefinable. I believe that man to some unknown degree could influence climate change. I don't know how much nor does anyone in the world. I am fine with erring on the side of caution and reducing man's footprint but I'm sure not supporting a go it alone approach. Global carbon taxes that are verifiable and enforceable would be fine with me as long as they also punish the overpopulaters, too. But none of that was proposed by Obama and/or the dems...just cap and trade on America only with ridiculous favored fuels like ethanol and punishment to NG and no mention of nukes.

Please explain this damage done to the local environment by fracking. I'm not talking about the occasional fluid spill but actual damage caused by the fracking process thousands of feet below the surface of the earth.

I'm all for pragmatism. Hard choices are fine. Ridiculous choices are not.

Obama was just bomb bomb Libya and maybe Syria next.

[pphilfran]

Sap, US emission have dropped but world wide emissions continued to climb...

[okie52]

That's a very good question. Once possible answer is that once we got it started, reinforcing feedback loops are keeping it going. Things like less sea ice in the Arctic means more absorption of heat, melting more ice. Or thawing methane deposits release methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2.

So we started it, now it's working on its own, and we probably can't do a whole heck of a lot to stop it.

Which begs the question, why am I wasting my time talking politics, while there are still beautiful days outside to enjoy?

Later.

Or CO2 continues to rise as does the world's population.

Should we be getting rid of cattle too? I'll miss my steaks.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Or CO2 continues to rise as does the world's population.

Should we be getting rid of cattle too? I'll miss my steaks."Plant some shrebs, my dear"-Lady Bird Johnson, circa 20th century.

[okie52]

"Plant some shrebs, my dear"-Lady Bird Johnson, circa 20th century.

Heh...

[KantoSooner]

IOW, many, including yourself, are satisfied to allow the authoritarian socialism we are settling into. You think this situation allows you personal liberty. This is not a surprise.

Neither is your response. Take off the tin foil hat and turn the Rush on the little box down. Obama's actions are going to affect the long term trends in our politics and society to about the same degree as Bush II's did. I don't like what he's doing and he's doing a lot of it poorly. That doesn't mean I have to hand the country over to Santorum and Bachman and the loons, though.

It's almost five, go have an adult beverage and chill out.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Neither is your response. Take off the tin foil hat and turn the Rush on the little box down. Obama's actions are going to affect the long term trends in our politics and society to about the same degree as Bush II's did. I don't like what he's doing and he's doing a lot of it poorly. That doesn't mean I have to hand the country over to Santorum and Bachman and the loons, though...

Well the personal insult was overdue. I applaud you for your restraint. I don't think your pooh pooh assessment of Obama and His long-term damage is any more accurate than your poor regard of Bachmann, and prolly some other good people in politics.

[KantoSooner]

Thanks for the applause. "Tin Foil Hat" now qualifies as a 'personal insult'? What else would you call interpreting fairly mundane political bunfights as armaggedon?
Chill, Francis, chill.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thanks for the applause. "Tin Foil Hat" now qualifies as a 'personal insult'? What else would you call interpreting fairly mundane political bunfights as armaggedon?
Chill, Francis, chill.tinfoil hat implies that someone else is doing one's thinking. Of course it's an insult. Why else would you use it?

If you are calling Obear's outlaw behavior mundane, then no wonder you aren't very concerned.

[KantoSooner]

Well, we come down to it: Yep, Obama's regime has done very little to alarm me. It's done nothing, really to please me. He's done very little.
So, the running around in equally little circles, hands waving overhead, that is engaged in by some is first mystifying, then it turns into annoying noise.

Go back and read the newpapers from the era of any administration since, well, George Washington (and he had his detractors as well, they just criticized his cabinet rather than the Great Man himself...) There has never been a president whose actions haven't, in the eyes of some, threatened the immediate collapse of the union. Somehow we've survived.

[okie52]

Well I feel better now.

[jkjsooner]

Thank you for making my point. Cutting CO2 emissions didn't do a thing for the global average. Nothing. Neither did the huge economic downturn starting in 2007. If humans are the cause of the higher CO2 average, shouldn't the CO2 average go up and down in relation to our global economic output and retractions?

Instead it is a steady climb up regardless of what humans are doing for the past 50 years. Why?

Are you saying that less CO2 emissions should lower the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

I don't think that's remotely true. I believe the rate that nature can recapture carbon is very low compared to our emissions. Once carbon is taken from the ground it is in the atmosphere. We can influence the rate of increase of CO2 but that does not mean we're reducing total CO2 levels in the atmosphere. To reduce the total CO2 levels we'd have to cut emissions to almost zero.

Now I'll agree that your chart seems to show that the rate of increase of CO2 is not decreasing but you also have to take into consideration China's role.

Also it wasn't TAFB who made the initial claim that CO2 levels (or the rate of increase of CO2 levels) were decreasing.

[jkjsooner]

Show me exactly where the drop in CO2 can be found on this chart?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

It appears the global economic downturn didn't phase the rise in CO2. It is almost like something else is at work here and not CO2 produced by humans...

Putting aside the CO2 levels vs rate of change of CO2 levels for a moment, the chart you provided seems extremely worrisome to me. In about 40 years our CO2 levels have gone from roughly 315 to 390. That's a 24% increase in 40 years!

Over hundreds of thousands of years the CO2 levels have deviated significantly but it's hard to imagine such a dramatic change over such a short period of time from natural causes without some type of catastrophic event. In either case, I'd be darned worried that the fourth most common molecule in our atmosphere has increased so significantly over such a short period of time.

[sappstuf]

Putting aside the CO2 levels or rate of change of CO2 levels for a moment, the chart you provided seems extremely worrisome to me. In about 40 years our CO2 levels have gone from roughly 315 to 390. That's a 24% increase in 40 years!

Over hundreds of thousands of years the CO2 levels have deviated significantly but it's hard to imagine such a dramatic change over such a short period of time from natural causes without some type of catastrophic event. In either case, I'd be darned worried that the fourth most common molecule in our atmosphere has increased so significantly over such a short period of time.

Why? Hurricanes are at an all time low. It has been over 2700 days since a Cat 3 hurricane has hit the US. Every day is a new record. Tornadoes are at an all time low. Plants have more food than ever.. Temperatures are not rising as the IPCC predicted and will soon fall their predictive scale completely.

Life is pretty good.

[KantoSooner]

Is anyone aware of any real science that compares CO2 (and other gases and particulates) from human-controlled sources vs natural sources like volcanoes, wild fires, decay of vegetation and the like? I'm not sure I could 'logic' my way within an order of magnitude, so I'm curious.

[jkjsooner]

Why? Hurricanes are at an all time low. It has been over 2700 days since a Cat 3 hurricane has hit the US. Every day is a new record. Tornadoes are at an all time low. Plants have more food than ever.. Temperatures are not rising as the IPCC predicted and will soon fall their predictive scale completely.

Life is pretty good.

I guess I wasn't very clear what I was saying. I think you reversed my intended cause and effect.

I was asserting that a natural rise in CO2 levels in such a short period of time must have been caused by a catastrophic event (volcano,etc.).

I was not making a claim that the rise of CO2 must necessarily cause a catastrophic event.