:rolleyes: What deception? You’re not still talking about that silly Indian-heritage manufactroversy, are you?
I’m referring to the fact that you won’t find a socialist who will say bad things about her even though she’s never indicated that she’s a socialist. Libertarians don’t put up with non-libertarian politicians, so I can only conclude that socialists believe she’s secretly one of them.
Back to the environment/jobs issue, there sure as heck was a conflict in the district that election was held in, and it cost the Democrats a safe seat. Of course, Democrats are usually smarter than that, running against environmentalism when their constituents are being hurt by it(see Senators from all oil, coal, or auto manufacturing states).
That’s an accident of judicial history, rather than the result of executive or legislative action, though.
Once again there you go again with the misinterpretations, the inland areas of California are not really safe seats for democrats, once again you are just repeating the unsupported spin from Breitbart and henchmen.
Ah, so it’s a conservative Latino district. That’s good to know, seems like the GOP does have a chance in the future if these districts are possible.
If only districts like that were more numerous.. but they are not, so dream on.
They’ll get more numerous if you keep on messing with people’s livelihoods.
Neither do Muslims, so she must be a Muslim.
Again, that only works by denying even the fact that conservative groups are working for solutions and to make jobs that will make those solutions possible.
And as pointed before, there is extreme bullshit coming from Tea Partiers and Republicans in their attempts to make this a political issue. It was never supposed to be, but unethical politicians from the right decided it was needed, once again, one has to blame powerful interests behind that conversion from a scientifically based conversation to a political one where one side is just lying to the American people, even Republican scientists took notice:
So, as pointed before, deniers are now reaching unethical levels now in their use of politics, the costs of doing something later will only increase thanks to the inaction demanded by the current Tea Party pamphleteers.
Environmentalism is good in a vaccuum, and almost everyone supports it. In a vacuum. When environmentalism conflicts with people’s livelihoods, people become a lot less supportive.
I used to think the tradeoff was worth it, until the market reduced carbon emissions better than numerous attempts at government regulation ever did.
Got a few examples?
Not a matter of “one of them,” more a matter of “lesser of two evils.” There are so few actual socialist politicians in America that a socialist usually has only two realistic choices: Support the Dem, since there are only two games in town that matter and that one is slightly nearer to your own thinking than the other; or sit the whole thing out, which galls any politically engaged person of any kind. Or you could vote for the socialist on the rare occasion where there’s one on the ballot, but even then you know you’re wasting your vote except in a send-a-message sense. It’s pretty much the same with libertarians, isn’t it? How many are stupid-or-radical enough to actually vote LP?
Again, and you are digging deeper, not that I see anything wrong with that :), the fact that you do acknowledge that there are solutions going on is an acknowledgment that indeed there is a problem, and the Tea Partiers are constantly lying about that problem not existing. This demonstrates that you are much better than the Tea Partiers** that are continuing to lie to the American people.
**
The problem is that the experts are telling us that is not enough, the faster we get also government to help industry achieve better control of the global warming gas emissions, the better and less expense we will have to waste in the future.
Once again, thank you for demonstrating the complete unethical and complete failure of the tea party and current Republicans on this issue.
It was alluded to earlier in this thread. The reason for the decline in coal has more to do with natural gas replacing it than regulations, although regulatory changes are kicking coal while it’s down.
The switch to natural gas, due to cheaper methods of extracting it, has done more to reduce carbon emissions than anything the government ever did.
The same can be said for poverty. Decades of government initiatives, such as foreign aid didn’t even make a dent in human suffering, and the rise of free trade and globalization lifted a billion people out of poverty in a decade.
While government has a role in solving the problems the market can’t solve, modern liberals tend to forget that we got where we are today because of free markets. The government came late to the game to mitigate the problems caused by market failure, and liberals came to believe that the government was the source of all that was good, while the market was an evil to be controlled.
There’s a difference between lesser of two evils, and adoration. Lefties of all stripes adore Liz Warren. There’s just no reason for that unless they believe she’s on their side: mainstream liberals because that’s how she portrays herself, socialists, because they think she’s one of them.
Fire is a good thing. It is best if it is kept under tight control.
I agree, but regulation should be approached as a way to insure “rules of the road” are followed. Too often Democrats approach regulation the way Republicans approach the issue with abortion clinics. It’s the one issue on which suddenly Republicans see the value of regulation, and Democrats laud unfettered free markets. All of a sudden, Democrats realize that regulations can kill industries.
Now if only they’d show that much concern for all the other industries in this country.
And C.A.R.B. and the Clean Air Act had nothing to do with it.
CARB was established in 1967 by Reagan. The Clean Air Act was in 1963. Not really that late to the party.
Those things help with low hanging fruit. Back then, it was easy for industries to pollute less, they just didn’t want to because it was cheaper to pollute.
What the government is trying to do now, in its extreme hubris, is force the development of technologies that don’t even exist yet, and “helping” by giving extremely generous subsidies to industries that may or may not be the future. If the solar industry is indeed employing more people than the oil industry, that’s scary, because oil is still a huge part of our energy portfolio. What’s solar doing? That’s a bubble if it’s employing that many people without producing a product in wide use. And you won’t be able to blame the market when that bubble pops, although I’m sure the left will try.
A regulation that says, “Install this $10,000 widget to reduce your pollution by 80%” makes sense. A regulation that says, “Reduce your carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. How? we don’t know, you figure it out!” is stupid.
There was a time when petroleum was of little use and look how it’s grown. Money must be spent to produce new tech and improve efficiency.
Remember, cars used to get mileage in the single digits with huge V-8s. Now we have 4s that make as much or more HP and get mileage in the mid to high 20s(or even more).
Innovation is always good business unless you believe that every penny that isn’t profit is a waste.