# I don't think you understand how much I hate the Grand Old Party **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 16, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648 "2011-04-16T20:37:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/1 "2011-04-16T20:37:40Z")
I don’t really hate individual Republicans as a rule. I don’t hate Bricker, I don’t hate Richard Lugar. I hate what the sadly misnamed “conservative movement” has done to people who are trying to be rational and law-abiding. And a lot of it boils down to the failure to recognize that conservation of our society’s resources and capacities is the primary requirement of responsible government. I can allow that most of the people voting against sustainability laws are ignorant & misled; but I have come to believe that there is a terrifying evil at work in the leadership, not just avarice, but something darker & nihilistic the nature of which I can only guess at. > [@Obama announces candidacy](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-announces-candidacy/577351/21): > > So it appears that a world which becomes uninabitable they day after these guys die is okay with them. The day _before_. What’s the point of power if you can’t suck all the marrow out of life & see the last beautiful day, & then see the horror of a world with air unbreathable & die from CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity knowing that there was nothing left for you to miss? You really don’t get extreme egomania if you think they intend the world to endure one second longer than themselves. OK, I don’t know that. But that’s one possible explanation, and if I could find someone with the power, I could speculate he does think that way. But the GOP is a beast with multiple heads, & it’s hard to pin down. Not that most GOP pols think that way, they’re usually pretty ordinary blokes who’d like to leave something to their children. They just believe what the think tanks tell them. I don’t know how the think tanks got that way. > [@](#): > > Sorry, it isn’t that I intend to vote party-line democrat. It is that the GOP is our enemy and will never, ever get another one of my votes. Not even for oily-pelican catcher. This. I left the GOP in 2004 when I realized that they were lawless fascist fools. I wanted a realignment that hasn’t come and isn’t coming. I think I’ll start a Jacobin party. Our platform involves disenfranchisement of anyone who is demonstrably an anti-conservation nut. Maybe with ordnance. This is how bad I hate the party. And I was raised a Reagan Republican. “My party” is selling the world out for–what? It isn’t future wealth, that’s for sure. Pollution, mass extinctions, mass displacement of peoples with climate change, the impoverishment of the proles, no, there’s a point where it seems like they are choosing evil not for personal gain but from some misguided belief that they must. I am coming again to believe the devil does exist. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/2 "2011-04-16T20:46:12Z")
Will you be taking donations? Of ordnance? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/3 "2011-04-16T20:47:43Z")
It’s pretty hard to underestimate the level of hatred towards the GOP in general on this message board, or with specific posters such as the OP. I don’t think there are many people who don’t understand how much the OP hates the GOP. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/4 "2011-04-16T20:47:45Z")
I don’t really hate Democrats, they just have different political positions than me. What I hate are Straight Dope style Democrats such as yourself who believe politics is about righteous causes and the opponents can only be motivated by evil. Also, talking about CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity makes you sound like a _fucking idiot_. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/5 "2011-04-16T21:09:09Z")
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the OP for taking such a bold position on this board of all places. You are a brave person, and I tip my hat to you. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/6 "2011-04-16T21:14:49Z")
I agree with almost all of what you say, **foolsguinea**. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > I don’t really hate individual Republicans as a rule. I don’t hate Bricker, I don’t hate Richard Lugar. I hate what the sadly misnamed “conservative movement” has done to people who are trying to be rational and law-abiding. > > [aa] … I can allow that most of the people voting against sustainability laws are ignorant & misled; > [bb] … but I have come to believe that there is a terrifying evil at work in the leadership, not just avarice, but something darker & nihilistic the nature of which I can only guess at. … You really don’t get extreme egomania if you think they intend the world to endure one second longer than themselves. > [cc] … Not that most GOP pols think that way, they’re usually pretty ordinary blokes who’d like to leave something to their children… I wouldn’t change a word, though for any sober discussion of point bb, you’ll need GD, not BBQ. But sure enough. In only ten minutes the post is misconstrued: > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > [dd] I don’t really hate Democrats, they just have different political positions than me. > > [ee] What I hate are Straight Dope style Democrats such as yourself who believe politics is about righteous causes and the opponents can only be motivated by evil. > > [ff] Also, talking about CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity makes you sound like a _fucking idiot_. It sounds like septi, martin, and foolsg agree on [dd] (with the obvious Dem \<–\> GOP substitution). But [ee] seems a big misconstruction. I’d say that most voters, commentators, and – yes – even many or most politicans are sincere. When one considers big funders, fund raisers, lobbyist mongers, and party leaders, there will surely be some evil of various sorts, on both Dem and GOP sides. **foolsg** was careful to agree that most voters, of either Party are not motivated by evil. And BTW, in over 76.2% of the allegedly “evil” motivations, “greedy” would be a better choice of adjective. As to righteous causes, to discuss them would be hijack OP’s thread. Hell, this is BBQ Pit and AFAIK hijacking is permitted: _ **Do you support any righteous causes, Martin?** _ ---
**Author:** ![smellsofgummybears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@smellsofgummybears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smellsofgummybears)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/7 "2011-04-16T21:19:40Z")
OP, it must be horrible being you. The pessimism and thinking the worst of your fellow man has to grind you down every day. I’m genuinely sorry. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/8 "2011-04-16T21:26:53Z")
I consider myself to be a Burkian, philosophical, or a true conservative in that I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential, I am skeptical of the value of untested social theories, and distrustful of rapid changes in any direction. Nevertheless, I find that it is the Republican Party that is the most susceptible to irrational enthusiasms for economic theories that are obviously bizarre. The most obvious of these is the notion that tax cuts generate more economic growth and even tax revenue than tax increases. No amount of contrary experience convinces Republicans that this is a delusion. Another example is Republican enthusiasm for a national sales tax. We hear much of how much economic growth it would generate. The only thing we can be reasonably confident of is that it would be regressive. The “conservatism” of most Republicans does not seem to extend beyond a hatred for taxes, gun control laws, and the government. This is why I very seldom vote Republican. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/9 "2011-04-16T21:33:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > And a lot of it boils down to the failure to recognize that conservation of our society’s resources and capacities is the primary requirement of responsible government. I disagree. Does that make me evil? Do you know why I disagree? Or do you care? > [@foolsguinea](#): > > I can allow that most of the people voting against sustainability laws are ignorant & misled; but I have come to believe that there is a terrifying evil at work in the leadership, not just avarice, but something darker & nihilistic the nature of which I can only guess at. So, those who do not agree with you are either ignorant and misled or pure evil. Yeah, I can see why you’d hate those kinds of people. Of course, this assumes that every one who disagrees with you is ignorant or evil. Maybe, just maybe, there are principled reasons to disagree with your views. Na, that could never happen :smack: > [@foolsguinea](#): > > The day _before_. What’s the point of power if you can’t suck all the marrow out of life & see the last beautiful day, & then see the horror of a world with air unbreathable & die from CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity knowing that there was nothing left for you to miss? You really don’t get extreme egomania if you think they intend the world to endure one second longer than themselves. > > OK, I don’t know that. But that’s one possible explanation, and if I could find someone with the power, I could speculate he does think that way. But the GOP is a beast with multiple heads, & it’s hard to pin down. > > Not that most GOP pols think that way, they’re usually pretty ordinary blokes who’d like to leave something to their children. They just believe what the think tanks tell them. Ah, so now it is the think tanks that cause all the republicans to be evil. Gotcha. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > I don’t know how the think tanks got that way.This. I left the GOP in 2004 when I realized that they were lawless fascist fools. I wanted a realignment that hasn’t come and isn’t coming. > > I think I’ll start a Jacobin party. Our platform involves disenfranchisement of anyone who is demonstrably an anti-conservation nut. Maybe with ordnance. And I assume you get to decide who the nuts are, correct? So much for freedom. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > This is how bad I hate the party. And I was raised a Reagan Republican. “My party” is selling the world out for–what? It isn’t future wealth, that’s for sure. Pollution, mass extinctions, mass displacement of peoples with climate change, the impoverishment of the proles, no, there’s a point where it seems like they are choosing evil not for personal gain but from some misguided belief that they must. > > I am coming again to believe the devil does exist. Of course, if you do not understand that stance of those you disagree with the only possible response is hate. Because you will make up all kinds of reasons they disagree with you. Those reasons will likely make you look good and make them look evil. For the record, I don’t much like the republicans either. I like the democrats even less\*. As far as I can tell the political environment in the U.S. is such that principled, honest and trustworthy people never have a chance to get anywhere in either party. So the nut jobs on both sides run further away from the middle and more hate is generated. Slee \*Though the christian conservatives are by far my least favorite folks out there… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/10 "2011-04-16T21:36:47Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The day _before_. What’s the point of power if you can’t suck all the marrow out of life & see the last beautiful day, & then see the horror of a world with air unbreathable & die from CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity knowing that there was nothing left for you to miss? You really don’t get extreme egomania if you think they intend the world to endure one second longer than themselves. > > OK, I don’t know that. Well, you don’t not much on the CO2 issue too, that’s for sure. There is BTW a level were CO2 is declared toxic, but we are talking about 10,000 Parts Per Million and those levels are a concern if we are talking about being in enclosed locations. > **[InspectApedia Diagnose & Fix What's Wrong at Your Building](https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Hazards.php)** > > FREE Encyclopedia of Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, Repair The current levels in the atmosphere for CO2 are 392.40ppm way too low to make us curl up and die now, but that is not the reason why we should worry. > **[Fast-rising CO2 levels accelerating global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm)** > > \Despite the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.\ > [@](#): > > In short, following the ‘business as usual’ approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100. It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv. This will result in an accelerating rate of global warming, not a linear rate. Under Scenarios A2 and A1F1, the IPCC report projects that the global temperature in 2095 will be 2.0–6.4°C above 1990 levels (2.6-7.0°C above pre-industrial), with a best estimate of 3.4 and 4.0°C warmer (4.0 and 4.6°C above pre-industrial average surface temperatures), respectively. \*\*That \*\*is the reason why one should have contempt for the current GOP, almost all have decided now to not only ignore the science, not a big problem there, the big problem is when they make legislative moves to actively deny that there is a problem. [http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/154445-house-votes-down-climate-science-amendment](http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/154445-house-votes-down-climate-science-amendment) > [@](#): > > Amendment that says climate change is occurring fails in House > By Ben Geman - 04/06/11 07:13 PM ET > > The House rejected a Democratic amendment Wednesday that would have put the chamber on record backing the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause. > > Lawmakers voted 184-240 against Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) amendment to a GOP-led bill that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/11 "2011-04-16T21:54:40Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > And a lot of it boils down to the failure to recognize that conservation of our society’s resources and capacities is the primary requirement of responsible government. It is? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/12 "2011-04-16T22:10:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > As to righteous causes, to discuss them would be hijack OP’s thread. Hell, this is BBQ Pit and AFAIK hijacking is permitted: _ **Do you support any righteous causes, Martin?** _ First, labeling each point of someone’s post with notations such as [aa], [bb], [cc] etc is the most pointless, annoying, stupid thing I have ever seen. I have seen much posting behavior that annoys me on these boards. Some individuals feel the need to respond to a long post with 20+ quotations of the long post instead of simply composing an answer, that I find annoying. Some people quote the entire text of a long post when the content of their post makes it obvious to what they are responding, that I find annoying. This is a whole other level, and honestly if you do it with one of my posts again I’ll not respond to anything else you say in this thread because of its stupid and pointless nature. Now, to the point of your post. I will correct myself, you are right that the OP does not believe the only motivation for her opponents to be evil. I will thus amend my statement and say that the OP believes all Republicans are either evil (if they’re the leadership) or stupid sheep (all other Republicans.) What I especially love is that idiots like the OP have taken a genuine concern such as concern over the future of the environment and has run away with it. It is now the primary concern of humanity? Bullshit. We have much more immediate concerns. Additionally, protecting natural resources does not trump say, protecting the liberty of the citizenry. Without a free society the environment is actually far more exposed to abuse because the government will treat the environment essentially based on whim. With a free society if you convince a majority that the environment should be a major priority, it will become one. The reality is we do engage in some unfortunate pollution, it is causing some small levels of warming and actually many other problems that don’t get near the attention of AGW and are probably more damaging to human beings. The other reality is there is no chance whatsoever our current behavior is going to destroy the entire planet, kill all life on earth, turn the planet into Venus, cause the entire atmosphere to boil away or anything like that. Talk of the world not existing even a second after the death of [insert GOP leader here] is foolish. No person with meaningful knowledge of the subject can possibly believe there is any chance of such an apocalypse in the lifetimes of anyone on these boards or even the lifetime of anyone on these board’s grand children. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/13 "2011-04-16T22:26:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What I especially love is that idiots like the OP have taken a genuine concern such as concern over the future of the environment and has run away with it. It is now the primary concern of humanity? Bullshit. We have much more immediate concerns. Of course we do, but it is really dumb to act like if it will never become an immediate concern. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Additionally, protecting natural resources does not trump say, protecting the liberty of the citizenry. Without a free society the environment is actually far more exposed to abuse because the government will treat the environment essentially based on whim. With a free society if you convince a majority that the environment should be a major priority, it will become one. Not when the information the people gets is manipulated by professional doubters. [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html) > [@](#): > > It is helpful to bear this in mind when considering important scientific issues that confront society, such as the public health effects of tobacco smoke and the - potentially even greater - impact on public health posed by climate change. Those issues, and many others, are characterised by some degree of uncertainty: After all, no scientist can predict exactly whether or not you will develop lung cancer if you continue to smoke eight packs a day for the next 30 years. The particular outcome is uncertain - but it is nonetheless certain that smoking causes lung cancer, and it is certain that it is a good idea to quit now in order to avoid adverse health consequences later. Likewise, no climate scientist can predict the exact temperature rise during the next decade to two decimal places - but there is virtual certainty that temperatures will continue to rise, and it is certain that it is a good idea to cut greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid adverse planetary consequences later. > > It is therefore intriguing, and only at first glance surprising, that the history of tobacco reads so much like the history of climate change: In both instances, partial scientific knowledge accompanied by uncertainties was available for decades before meaningful action was taken - in the case of tobacco - or will be taken - in the case of climate change. In both cases, real debate about the fundamentals ceased in the scientific community long before those fundamentals became firmly embedded in the public’s knowledge. > > Why the delay? Why did so many more people have to die needlessly from lung cancer for so long after the medical community had clearly identified the risk? > > The answer is illustrated with devastating clarity in a recent book by Professor Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, who revealed in painstaking detail how a handful of ideologues, aided by shadowy but well-funded “think tanks” were able to manufacture doubt in the public’s mind about the link between smoking and lung cancer. Oreskes and co-author Professor Conway show how those few people, by creating pseudo-scientific “institutes” with pseudo-scientific “conferences”, created the appearance of a scientific debate when there was none. And human nature being what it is, the appearance of debate, and the presence of scientific uncertainty, was sufficient to delay life-saving interventions and public-health campaigns against smoking. > > Precisely the same pseudo-scientific “institutes,” using the same pseudo-scientific jargon and the same pseudo-scientific “conferences” are now seeking to create the appearance of a “debate” about the fundamentals of climate science. Indeed, the very same people - yes, the same individuals - who were involved in manufacturing doubt about the link between smoking and cancer are now also involved in manufacturing doubt about climate science. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The reality is we do engage in some unfortunate pollution, it is causing some small levels of warming and actually many other problems that don’t get near the attention of AGW and are probably more damaging to human beings. The other reality is there is no chance whatsoever our current behavior is going to destroy the entire planet, kill all life on earth, turn the planet into Venus, cause the entire atmosphere to boil away or anything like that. Talk of the world not existing even a second after the death of [insert GOP leader here] is foolish. No person with meaningful knowledge of the subject can possibly believe there is any chance of such an apocalypse in the lifetimes of anyone on these boards or even the lifetime of anyone on these board’s grand children. Of course the OP is indeed in alarmist mode, and what he is saying is discredited by the science, however, assuming that the risk is low is also a mistake. [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html) > [@](#): > > Putting aside the manufacturing of doubt by ideologues, how do we best deal with the uncertainty inherent in climate science? In particular, what are we to make of the IPCC’s latest assessment report, published in 2007, which some have labelled “alarmist” despite the fact that it painstakingly circumscribed the scientific uncertainties? > > Sadly, the IPCC report was not alarmist but was probably overly conservative. > > My fellow cognitive scientist Professor Budescu, from the University of Illinois, recently showed that people’s perception of uncertainty deviates from that intended by the IPCC; in particular, most people underestimate the certainty and confidence that the IPCC assigned to “likely” and “very likely” events. Thus, events that are 90 per cent or more certain to occur - such as the increased frequency of extreme weather events - people perceive as being only 75 per cent probable, simply because the popular understanding of phrases such as “very likely” is more conservative than intended. > > Thus, far from being alarmist, the carefully chosen phraseology of the IPCC fails to communicate the urgency of the situation. > > The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected. > > This, then, is the crux of the matter that is too often overlooked or ignored: Uncertainty cuts both ways. Uncertainty means things could be worse, or indeed far worse, than the generally conservative assessment of the state of the climate provided by the IPCC and other bodies, such as the recent document published by the UK’s Royal Society. > > Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated. > > Anyone who argues that we need not act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you come along for a ride into a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might hurt only a little. > > Are you feeling lucky? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/14 "2011-04-16T22:47:20Z")
It must be awful to be a [del]liberal[/del] [del] whiny bitch [/del] progressive. You are [so much sadder](http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2008/05/05/why-conservatives-say-they-are-happier-than-liberals) than conservatives, and you complain all the time (Exh A being the number of pit threads and their subjects). ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Nader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Darth\_Nader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Nader)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/15 "2011-04-17T00:03:00Z")
I wish we could just dig up Dwight Eisenhower, stick a couple bolts in his neck, winch him up to the roof, and wait for the lightning. I would totally vote for FrankenIke. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/16 "2011-04-17T00:16:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course we do, but it is really dumb to act like if it will never become an immediate concern. I agree, but we aren’t talking about _what will become immediate concerns_ but what _are_ immediate concerns. A worker will most likely retire some day. Having enough money so that they can support themselves while not working during retirement is an important concern they should address throughout their lifetime, but is not an _immediate_ concern. Keeping the utilities in their home running, buying groceries, vehicle repair etc are _immediate_ concerns. Just like our situation, the worker’s retirement concerns will eventually become immediate. So he _should deal with it throughout his life_, but he can’t do so at the cost of not dealing with his immediate concerns. > [@](#): > > Of course the OP is indeed in alarmist mode, and what he is saying is discredited by the science, however, assuming that the risk is low is also a mistake. Risk of **what**? All I’m saying is the risk of the entire population of the Earth being wiped out by CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity any time in the next oh, say, few hundred years, is essentially zero. In fact, without knowing very much about the science, I actually wonder if such a thing could even happen at all without some sort of insane external event, and I would additionally wonder if the Earth could get to such a state that it was uninhabitable because of CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity _without_ some other lethal condition having already wiped out the population. I don’t know the answer but I would wager if the Earth got to the point that the air was toxic because of too much carbon dioxide humans would have probably already died from other things long before then since anything leading to such a situation would create many more terrible things prior to that point. I also additionally said the risk of all the Earth’s life being destroyed by runaway global warming, the atmosphere boiling off and etc are essentially zero over the next few hundred years. To be honest if you held a gun to me and made me speculate further I’d be comfortable speculating much farther out than that on _those_ things, but I’ll keep it to a few hundred years since the framing of the OP was much more immediate in time frame, just based on the wording (such as talking about how GOP politicians don’t care about anything that happens the day after they die–it suggests there is some real possibility of the Earth’s population being wiped out in the time frame of current politician’s personal life times.) ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/17 "2011-04-17T00:29:39Z")
Funny, it’s almost like our world sucks because of you. Imagine someone saying, “It must be awful to be a liberal whiny bitch abolitionist. You are so much sadder than conservatives, and you complain all the time.” Yeah. You I don’t like. Die. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/18 "2011-04-17T00:36:22Z")
I know that general atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity is not an imminent threat. I didn’t say it was. I was talking about the sort of psyche it takes to, in Try2B Comprehensive’s words, feels, “that a world which becomes uninabitable they day after these guys die is okay with them.” I was speaking of what kind of mind it takes to want that, & how different radical selfishness on a diabolic level really is. And I stepped back and admitted it was imaginary. Of course, the GOP won’t live that long. The displaced nations whose lands were drowned and droughted by global climate change will start mass migrations, which will lead to war, & in the horror to come, few will be able or willing to save a Park Avenue asshole with no sense of _noblesse oblige._ So spare me the posturing that, “Oh, no, the world isn’t being destroyed that way.” Yeah? And in what way is the world being destroyed that the GOP is remotely trying to stop? Madame Guillotine, she comes for you. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/19 "2011-04-17T00:40:21Z")
As for liberty being more important than the environment, tell me this: Whom exactly is it supposed to console, in the refugee crisis once the sea drinks Bangladesh, that the citizens of a rich Western power had a freer market? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648/20 "2011-04-17T00:49:37Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > As for liberty being more important than the environment, tell me this: Whom exactly is it supposed to console, in the refugee crisis once the sea drinks Bangladesh, that the citizens of a rich Western power had a freer market? i was obviously talking about political, not economic, freedom. Are you stupid or just incapable of reading? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-much-i-hate-the-grand-old-party/578648.md?page=2)