Archive for Friday, December 11, 2009

Environmentalism is the new socialism

December 11, 2009

Advertisement

— In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order.” The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality — wealth redistribution via global socialism — with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early ’80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

Comments

Brent Garner 5 years, 5 months ago

This is not about the environment. This is not about saving the earth. This about those leftists who oppose any kind of free enterpise system and who oppose liberty seeking control over the rest of us becaue they "know best" what we need. Their objective is to destroy the foundations upon which freedom and our natural, inalienable rights rest one of which is the right to own property and do with that property what we wish. So called environmentalism has become the new home of the old communist/marxist movement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

Ah, Charles, no one can distill complex problems to meaningless sloganeering quite like you can.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

Environmentalism is one of the keys to new industry and USA jobs jobs jobs of which 8 million were lost under this Bush administration. Previous administrations that included a Bush name also lost millions of USA jobs. That is some history. Building new industry and jobs seemed beyond their capacity.

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. All they do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars. Now the only way to get them revenues back is to take them back.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 5 months ago

merrill, how many times have you posted that set of old links? 200 times? 300 times? How do you decide which of your canned responses to copy/paste on any given thread? Do you have a set rotation? Do you throw darts at a chart on the wall?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

I am stunned that more citizens are not in the street demanding new USA industry that cannot be outsourced. If taxpayers want tax dollars to develop new industry so be it...YES!

A new stronger economy could be well underway if the government wanted to make it happen. The tools and labor force are available NOW. This new economy would stimulate other new business not necessarily related to energy but related to the new money available as a result of the new economy. : Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy.

What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”) answers that need.

To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today—and aim for at least an 80 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2050.

Blueprint policies lower U.S. heat-trapping emissions to meet a cap set at 26 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 56 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

The nation achieves these deep cuts in carbon emissions while saving consumers and businesses $465 billion annually by 2030. The Blueprint also builds $1.7 trillion in net cumulative savings between 2010 and 2030. Blueprint policies stimulate significant consumer, business, and government investment in new technologies and measures by 2030.

The resulting savings on energy bills from reductions in electricity and fuel use more than offset the costs of these additional investments. The result is net annual savings for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255 billion by 2030. Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

Faces of Renewable Energy

The renewable energy industry is growing and so too is the demand for skilled "green collar" workers in manufacturing, shipping, academia, sales, finance, and more.

Meet some of the people building our clean energy economy. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/faces/faces.html

Charles and his political pals fear any improvement in the quality of life for jobless americans. Yes his party would be out of the game for many years to come. Jobs and new industry would bring america up a few notches which is enough to make any party of NO a bit paranoid.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

Constitutional decency? How strange this propagandist was not quite so concerned when the lesser bush was dismantling our environmental protections by executive fiat.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

The US Supreme Court ruled several years ago that the EPA had the authority and the obligation to regulate CO2.

Bush's EPA did nothing.

This EPA is simply following the dictates of the Supreme Court.

If you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court.

anon1958 5 years, 5 months ago

Even though I have been a liberal since about age 14 and spent a career in higher education, I have actually never in my life met any of these dastardly leftists that want to destroy our liberties and turn the USA into a socialist quagmire.

Where are all these boogeymen that Krauthammer and cal thomas are always so paranoid about?

parrothead8 5 years, 5 months ago

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says… Their objective is to destroy the foundations upon which freedom and our natural, inalienable rights rest one of which is the right to own property and do with that property what we wish.

That's a pretty Ameri-centric viewpoint. Going forward, it's going to be imperative to view ourselves as world citizens, not merely US citizens. I think the objective is more about protecting the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for EVERYBODY...not just Americans. The way we live our lives in the US has serious, negative consequences on the rest of this planet's inhabitants.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"Where are all these boogeymen that Krauthammer and cal thomas are always so paranoid about?"

Accompanying Dorothy down the Yellow Brick-- and it's not the Lion or the Tin Man.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

"I must agree with Krauthammer"

Actually you are allowed to think for yourself. These paid corporate media propagandists are employed only to advertise the corporate business agenda to the masses. You are not yet required to agree.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

It doesn't do any good to demonize environmentalism.

Even a little kid can criticize. It doesn't take much. We are all good at it.

Krauthammer is an embarassment.

We live in a time when we have to work hard at finding sustainable solutions instead of anything goes capitalism.

If our capitalist system cannot adapt to the demands of social responsibility and all it entails, it will fail. So today it is not environmentalism which is being questioned, it is whether capitalism will evolve.

Or as the older Bush liked to say, we need a movement of "compassionate conservatism".

When Cheney and the younger Bush took over, we turned in the opposite direction and that will be the Dick Cheney legacy. He almost destroyed the Republican Party.

The scary thing for me is that in a time we are looking for great leadership, vision and ideas, we get guys like Krauthammer.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

"You just knew that Chuck would get bozo, scott3460, merrill, jonas, and the other kneejerk lefties worked up with this one. The truth hurts, doesn't it?"

Actually it is willful ignorance that bothers most left leaning folks. The right wingers would be better off if they were bothered by it as well, but that has not recently been the case.

mickeyrat 5 years, 5 months ago

For those who would either buy into or propagate this new(ish) mantra (mainly deployed in discussions of insurance reform and environmental policy) that "this is all a Marxist/Leninist plot to control everything," a question: how well will this argument serve you? What is the purpose of casting aspersions on the motives of people who support policies differing from your own? It leaves little room for agreement on the most basic components of any issue.

If your only purpose is to make sure the American people are solidly divided into factions lobbing hand-grenades over their metaphorical walls, or to refine the methods of needling your brother-in-law (nephew, whoever) in anticipation of another drunken Christmas dinner riot, go right ahead, and carry on smartly. If you instead might be interested in convincing someone that your viewpoint has more merit, you might reconsider your approach.

grammaddy 5 years, 5 months ago

Why is working together as a planet to save the planet a bad thing. I see why Americans are looked down abroad and it has nothing to do with who is leading the country. Judging by some of the posts here, I'd say we're a pretty arrogant bunch with entitlement issues. Who says your life is any more valuable than those from Ethiopia? We've gotten very comfortable with all our material goods even though the convenience of having them is destroying the very planet we ALL live on.scott 3460, you hit it right on the head. Willful ignorance indeed.

feeble 5 years, 5 months ago

"There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society —— you do it through Congress reflecting popular will."

Dems have a majority in Congress, why isn't Krauthammer beating their HCR drum? oh, that's right, Kraut only cares about Congress when the majority of members have R's next to their name.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

I do not think the Republican Party is rotten because it has rotten apples like Krauthammer, Cheney and Karl Rove. Or phonies like Newt Gingrich. I just hope the Party can change for the better.

I think the environmental movement has bad apples also. We just have to sort through and separate the good from the bad.

Krauthammer would have made a brilliant Nazi because he understands human nature. He is the Steven King of the Republican Party and everyone else is the devil.

But he is typical of what we are seeing today. There are no leaders out there.

quimby 5 years, 5 months ago

well, according to this article, i'm a socialist, which is absolutely not true. stop characterizing environmentalism this way. i got into this line of work because i truly value our natural resources and want our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy them, as well. that's it. plain and simple. oh, and then there's the fact that we depend on a healthy environment, um, to live...

Cant_Rand 5 years, 5 months ago

While disdain for the earth has been a constant point for religious conservatives, it's the disdain for fellow man that really marginalizes their "movement". Keep (kissing) that chicken, neo-cons, (or whats left of ya). Ignorance and greed...quite a legacy...

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

"The truth hurts, doesn't it?"

Nope, not at all. Teh socializms(tm) isn't much more than the last and least refuge of those who consider themselves to have a perfect ideology, only accomplished by ignoring, dismissing, or rationalizing its many visible flaws.

Anyway, I'm going to go back to ignoring you now, gr. . . sorry, finger slipped. . . OppO.

werekoala 5 years, 5 months ago

I love how saying that saying we as a nation should have sustainable and self-sufficient energy is deemed "SOCIALISM" when it threatens Big Oil's profits.

But at least I can understand them, they're evil, but rational.

What I can't wrap my head around is all the nobodies in this country that endlessly echo the talking points of the elites, as if by protesting loud enough they'll somehow get a Magic Ticket to the Wonka Factory.

jaywalker 5 years, 5 months ago

"The scary thing for me is that in a time we are looking for great leadership, vision and ideas, we get guys like Krauthammer"

Really? Then the scary thing for me is that there are people like you looking to newspaper columnists for leadership.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

"Let me ask you bozo, scott, grammaddy and other resident lefties, how do you process this?"

Well, since you asked:

The troops to Afghanistan....they are going to do the job bush started and refused to finish. I expect they will hunt down and kill those responsible for 9/11, then come home when they have finished that which should have been completed years and years ago.

Nobel Prize....most of the world recognizes that Obama is returning this nation to the moral basis upon which we should lead. It is a shame that the partisan hatred and fear of the right wingers does not allow them to see this.

Let me know what else about reality confuses you. I am happy to explain.

pace 5 years, 5 months ago

If being a filthy pig and spoiling the air, the water, and the earth is being a good conservative, Then conservatism is no longer economics it is criminal behavior. Stealing the environment by dumping trash in it and on it without responsibility isn't profit it is theft..

Paul Decelles 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty,

Some aspects of the environment are a commons-ocean resources such as fisheries and also the atmosphere. These may best be managed by international agreement as has been done with some success with CFC's.

Other sorts of resources are best managed exactly as you say as privately held. The forests in the North East part of this country are a good example of this.

somedude20 5 years, 5 months ago

Don't worry be happy. It is our birthright as Americans to turd all over and destroy the earth, as it was give to us by the G.O.D. and he (of course it is a male cause a female would never allow humans to get away with what we are doing to the earth) can damn well make us a new one as we are entitled to it!! Last time the G.O.D. made our mud ball in a week...work faster I don't want to wait.

remember_username 5 years, 5 months ago

Tom asks - "Let me ask you bozo, scott, grammaddy and other resident lefties, how do you process this?"

I see President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the nearly simultaneous increasing commitment of military force to Afghanistan as perfectly American in nature. I don't have any problem processing it - I listened to the acceptance speech and thought it was brilliant. I agree we have a mess to clean up and a moral obligation to try to do so. If the locals want to help? Great, we'll leave it a better place. If not, we're getting out and the locals can live with it.

Oh, and as per your 7:44 no self respecting left wing elitist is going to use the term "hoi polloi”. It is always "the masses" in public, "the proletariat" during our secret meetings, or "the rank and file" if we already control them. While we elitists are all very familiar with the Greek definition of "hoi polloi", polls have shown that "the masses" think it is the name of a south pacific island or baltic state swine dish so use of the term is discouraged.

georgiahawk 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty one and you conservatives, you are one trick ponies! Never trust someone that knows the answer before the question is asked! They have an agenda!

remember_username 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty - "The tragedy of the commons dictates that everyone will use up such a resource for personal, temporary gain at the long-term expense of the resource. Why then isn't the solution to make the resource not commonly held but privately held instead?"

I really don't get how private ownership of any resource protects the resource? Please elaborate.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 5 months ago

Did any one else catch that the Saudi's are threatening to nix any climate deal unless they get compensated for their loss of sales?

Just throwing a different perspective out there.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

...The tragedy of the commons dictates that everyone will use up such a resource for personal, temporary gain at the long-term expense of the resource. Why then isn't the solution to make the resource not commonly held but privately held instead?

Also, Liberty, who do you think should own the ocean or the atmosphere?

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 5 months ago

Good lord. More name calling.

Simple equivocation without explaining exactly what your argument is. This is simplistic thought.

Oh, yeah. Its Krauthammer. So never mind...

pace 5 years, 5 months ago

When complaints were made about Farmland Industries about their short cut practices and environmental damage. Farmland Industries were heralded by conservatives and by the city for the jobs they gave to this town. They weren't responsible for their actions and they weren't responsible to clean up their seeping hole. They took their profits and left their costs. I worked with Farmland in a couple of occasions. They bragged about how they could dodge regulations. They sold out their responsibility for pennies on the dollar, part of the deal their supporters let them make. That isn't conservative economics, that is theft. Corporations are buying Congress to degrade regulations so they can pass their costs to taxpayers and keep the profits in the corporations, So beware ,when anyone tells you it is the environmentalists that are hurting businesses. It is the businesses that don't want to pick up their own costs that are hurting taxpayers and the environment.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"private ownership protects it because the owner cares about the long-term value of the property."

In your ideal world, maybe so. But in the real world, it's just as likely that the "owners" of a property are only looking to extract the greatest profit for the least cost from whatever it is they own. If you don't believe me, go visit West Virginia.

remember_username 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty - I see your point regarding the house but your example given considers owner occupancy or a short term resale. Sticking with the home ownership example what if your renting it out? To maximize your profits you'll want to balance repairs and improvements with rental income. If there are few renters you must compete by increasing the appeal of the property, but when there is demand for living space you can let repairs and improvements slide. If you don't take advantage of the demand you will loose profits. Lets say I'm a coal mine owner and have a choice to dig for coal, practice mountain top removal, or hold onto the resource. I will take the action that will result in maximum profits so I can take advantage of the money I can make now. I might know that in a century that coal will be worth more, but its going to cost me to sit on it, and I won't be able to take advantage of it then as I will be dead. Very few humans are capable of the long view of resource they hold in their hand. Its a lot easier to take that long view when its something shared by the community because the viewpoint is more far reaching.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

“Also, Liberty, who do you think should own the ocean or the atmosphere?”

However, something like fishing rights could be owned.

Any idea how to keep migratory fish in 'your' part of the ocean? Or, keep pollutants from someone else's part out of your part?

remember_username 5 years, 5 months ago

opposeobama - I like your bicycle analogy although there is no such thing as a missing bicycle. I'm pretty sure they all eventually end up in Amsterdam.

Try the same example with Rocky Mountain National Park, consider the protected area of the Park and the privately owned areas nearby - which area appears better protected.

tolawdjk 5 years, 5 months ago

The US is an industrial democracy? I thought we were a "service society which farmed out all its industrial production years ago to cheeper labor markets years ago and couldn't build a tricycle if our lives depended on it" democracy.

I also find it interesting that what'shisname cited the 250 tpy number and stated that EPA had no authority to increase it to 25,000 tpy. That tells me he recognizes EPA's authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant given the current Clean Air Act as written. Most environmental lawyers I have talked to about this are in agreement with his position here, regardless of political party.

No one seems to be discussing the other green house gases however, only CO2. Methane if a green house gas and for several years before it was determined to not be a VOC under Title I of the Act was regulated by the CAA. There is a whole -slew- of GHG that are HCFCs that are regulated under the Stratospheric Ozone rules...no one talks about those.

salad 5 years, 5 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says… "Krauthammer is brilliant."

...thus confirming Shewmon as official "Tard-master in residence" of the J-W forums.

Kraphammer is all about the following things: 1. Perpetual war is good. 2. Isreal can do NO wrong. 3. Torture works. 4. I'm smarter than any of you...just look at my picture.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

"Pollutants have to have a source. You would use the law to hold that other person responsible for the pollution."

Good luck with that. See medical malpractice, cigarette regulation and global warming for the predictable result of such an approach. Decades of obfuscation on cause and effect and overwhelming propaganda to shape public opinion at the hands of a corporate-controlled media.

MyName 5 years, 5 months ago

Ugh, Too Dumb; Didn't Read.

"The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World."

Wow that's BRILLIANT... if you're posting this in Whirl'd Nut Daily instead of an actual American Newspaper with editorial standards... oh wait, my bad!

Scott Drummond 5 years, 5 months ago

"Mother earth will shake us off like the fleas that we are when she is good & ready. Until then to beleive America is the sole cause & therefore solely responsible for the proclaimed enviro crisis is a foolish thought process."

Who says America is the only cause? We are among the largest contributors to the trashing of our global environment, but hardly alone.

"Mother earth" will indeed shake humans one day like proverbial fleas. Just as the dinosaurs and countless other species. Why hasten the day?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

“Any idea how to keep migratory fish in 'your' part of the ocean?”

Who said anything about keeping fish in your part of the ocean? I hope you aren't deliberately trying to miss the point.

Well, please explain what value fishing rights would have if there are no fish in the water because they've all been harvested elsewhere.

You made the point that privatization would work to solve the commons problem. I'm merely pointing out that are vast resources where this won't work. Heck, just look at the water wars between KS and NE; they thought it was simple enough to give rights to the water under the respective states until they figured out that one state's water tables could be lowered by the other state's farmers.

“Or, keep pollutants from someone else's part out of your part?”

Pollutants have to have a source. You would use the law to hold that other person responsible for the pollution.

They do have to have a source, but how would you go about determining where/what it is when it could have drifted in the currents for 10s of thousands of miles? And, who would enforce the law if the dispute were between nations? Are you suggesting that there should be something like, I don't know, the UN, for this kind of thing?

lwctown 5 years, 5 months ago

Environmentalism wouldnt be called socialism if large corporations could pump environmentalism from the ground and sell it to the masses for a large profit.

anon1958 5 years, 5 months ago

Jaywalker said...... Really? Then the scary thing for me is that there are people like you looking to newspaper columnists for leadership.


LMAO!! Jaywalker wins this thread.

anon1958 5 years, 5 months ago

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

anon1958 (Anonymous) says…

Even though I have been a liberal since about age 14 and spent a career in higher education, I have actually never in my life met any of these dastardly leftists that want to destroy our liberties and turn the USA into a socialist quagmire.


Can't see the forest for the trees, eh?


I am utterly devastated by your original and witty comeback. I am literally in shock and awe of your amazing powers wordplay. I think that I must cancel this account because your superhuman powers of rejoinder have completely destroyed my self confidence, self esteem and self worth.

Well maybe not.

JustNoticed 5 years, 5 months ago

Hey kids, here's an idea. Let's agree to never, ever use the phrase "going forward" again. Instead, how about, "in the future"?

... not a maven, just tired of you ...

George Lippencott 5 years, 5 months ago

I think I have been saying this over and over again. Mr. Krauthammer has done a much better job!!!

anon1958 5 years, 5 months ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

Now that the WIMP's are solving the Earth's decaying dilemma. When will the WIMP's decide to save the Moon? The planets in order of proximity to Earth? The Sun? The Solar system? The Galaxy? The Universe?

Stimulus, Worrisome Irreconcilable Malcontent Progressive's,(WIMP) and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless you all


LMAO at this. He left the S for stimulus out. Barrypenders cannot even string together an acronym. Since tomshewmon approved this acronym we can assume that he is equally as clever. Should be p squared also noob.

The most annoying thing about this forum is that barry, tom and pilgrim are not clever enough to really enjoy making fun of the nonsense they post.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 5 months ago

Conservatism is the new priapism.

( please seek medical attention before it's too late )

Chris Golledge 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty, I get the impression that you don't understand a couple of things: the word 'because', and the meaning of the word 'commons'. Nothing you said is applicable to the argument if you understand those terms. Good Night.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"Conservatism is the new priapism."

Somebody needs to tell Bob Dole that Bob Dole should cut back on the Viagra, even if Bob Dole does get free scrips.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

Your utopia would certainly be good for lawyers, liberty one, as it would require at least a quadrupling of the judicial branch, since everyone really would be suing each other all of the time. Is that why you're in law school?

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

Pilgrim,

What about the word "obligation" do you not understand?

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had not only the authority, but the obligation (ie. was required) to regulate CO2 emissions.

Again, if you don't like this, argue with the Supreme Court.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.