Obama Wants To Raise Your Electric Bill

why dont conservatives want to be conservative? that is, plan according to the worst-case (reasonable) scenario? fossil fuels are finite, MAY be nearing relative scarcity, are largely controlled by political foes and MAY cause significant harm to the earth and society as we know it for our descendants.

instead, conservatives are planning according to the best case scenario. that is foolish. sounds like something the french would do. oh wait, arent they the ones with all the nuclear power? italians then.

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

wow you guys oppose "too much"? let me guess, you also oppose "too little" and favor "just right".

maybe we should be "conservative" and control everything about everyone, just to be safe!

just out of curiosity, i would like to know how many folks globwal warming will kill in the next 300 years, just so i can know how serious it is.? anyone know? and how many peoploe will lack of economic development kill? yunno, aids, disease, malnutritiion, that sort of thing. which is the priority?

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

since when do conservatives care about how many peoploe die from these things?

we should repeal the child labor laws and 40 hr work week and minimum wage because we would be more productive.

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

i dont care. but presumably you do. why is global warming a priority whenlack of modern economiesis killing ****loads of folks right now? perhaps your priority is feeling good about yourself,not actually saving people.

child labor wouldnt happen in america and it has nothing to do with laws. it is because we are rich. you could make it legal tomorrow and it wouldnt matter. we always must work to maximize economic development.

the reason children work in other countries is because they are poor. the way to keep them poor is to hurt the americn economy with taxes, so that america isnt buying foreign products as much. so if you hate children, vote democrat.and yes, i am dead serious.

 

I just explained my point of view and have done it before. Because you totally oppose all you want to tell me that my only option is to totally oppose or totally agree. You either aren't smart enough to understand what I am saying or don't care to discuss this seriously, instead resorting to the childish antics of your political hero Hannity. Either way is foolish, which would make you a fool.

You advocate shting all over earth, particularly the poor areas, as this will produce more money and better short term living for the poor and to a lesser degree, the rest of the world.

I argue that there is some balance that must be struck. There are consequences to our actions, see some of the conditions in which poor people live in China where money takes precedence over ecological well being.

Because we can't totally define what impact we will have on the atmosphere doesn't mean something serious couldn't happen. I think scientists have an idea of some problematic things that may occur and feel there is a good chance there could be serious implications in continuing to allow unimpeded atmospheric pollution.

Perhaps the priority is to ensure long term survival on Earth. I don't believe in foreign welfare by governments. If the people of the US want to donate to Africa, fine, but that should be their choice. Ensuring that our country's industry doesn't endanger our long term well being is more of a governmental concern.

 

1. opposing "too much" of something is not a viewpoint. everyone opposes "too much.
2. you claim i misrepresent you, then call me a student of hannity. i havent seen more than one episode of that guy in my life, and not in years. try to address what i say, not what you think some idiot conservative talkshow guy says.
3. calling me a fool is against forum guidelines. try to manage your temper.

i do ?i thought i was pointing out that economic development is important.

ok red.

industrialization is making china rich. and why shouldnt we let china decide what they want?

again, do you think our carbonemissions will kill people? how many? how many die now from being poor? how much willl regulation slow the globakl eonomy and development. dont pretend these questions do not matter. any answers?

 

From your debate style I'd guess you watch a lot more of Hannity than you let on.

Everyone believes that economic development is important, but it has been your position that pollution is an acceptable byproduct. I agree to a point, but you don't seem to have a problem with the level of pollution that some areas of China have allowed.

AFP: Birth defects soar in polluted China

Is this acceptable?

I am not advocating intervening in China's domestic decisions. But I don't want to follow their model, and when their disregard for the atmosphere can be determined to seriously affect us, then it becomes an issue we must confront them on.

I think it is possible our atmospheric pollution could have consequences that conventional thinking can't pinpoint. It should be taken seriously. I do not believe in foreign welfare on a governmental level. That can be handled through private avenues.

 

1. stop being obsessed with fox news. not everything is related to it. if you watch it, great. i dont care about it at all or watch it. i have no idea why you and everyone cant stop talking about it.
2. you should also note that if you imply that i am dishonest again, i will permanantly ignore you. it bores me to speak to folks when that happens.

the chinese make their own choices. if they choose economic development over pollution, ok. perhaps they like having some money a being a little polluted rather than starvation in a pristine wilderness.

it doesnt affect us.

hey that is wonderfu.l

how many people do you think global warming will kill in the next 300 years? my guess is virtually zero. how many people will economic issues kill? millions.

do you agree with some folks that say the future of human civilization is at risk? (that is a yes or no question)

do you agree with my assertion that carbon has been at far higher concentrations in the atmosphere before humans existed? do you know why? do you know what happened to it or where it came from or went?

 

Re: Fun with Photoshop

i didnt know we were debating laws for other countries

high taxes isnt going to do that, continuous printing of money by the treasury will. anyway, again, i didnt know we were debating children in other countries.

my overall point is that strengthening the economy shouldnt always be the priority. quality of life should be. those two things are not always linked. "we always must work to maximize economic development." --sounds pretty extreme. you could be a fascist or a commie with that one. try saying that with a german or russian accent.