Today, I noticed an article in The Register warning of YET ANOTHER HEAT WAVE striking us in Orange County this week. maybe for some people, this just means another chance to go to the beach or to throw a “BBQ by the Pool” party. But for me, I see more than just that. I see yet more evidence of a global climate in crisis that has already begun to affect us locally.
Yet Jubal/Matt Cunningham somehow had the nerve to post this a week ago on OC Blog:
It goes without saying that injecting any degree of skepticism toward the figures and findings wafting from the climate change industry will likely lead to being branded a “traitor” by the Mahdi of Climate Change, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — but it’s still a free country in which we can voice such skepticism. In the old Soviet Union, dissent was treated as a form of mental disease — which isn’t too different from the way the EnviroLeft views any who don’t unquestioningly follow the party line.
And that’s my point — we ought to be skeptics on this issue, especially since the policy solutions being pushed by the Left involve the expansion of government power over our lives. Barbara Boxer flies over a glacier and to her that’s “proof” of climate change — as if she needs proof — the aggrandizement of government power inherent in the Left’s “save the planet” strategies is enough for her to believe in global warming.
HUH?! What on earth is happening to those folks at OC Blog? I guess they haven’t been able to wake up and smell the inferno the way the rest of us in the reality-based community already have.
Follow me after the flip for more…
ÂÂ
OK, first off… When did the far right begin to value dissent? After all, Matt has called all of us who oppose this disastrous occupation of Iraq “defeatists“. So when did it become acceptable to question known science, but not bad foreign policy? Now I’d never want to take away Matt’s right to question known science, but I’m just wondering why he has a problem with people like me who don’t see any value in continuing Bush’s failed war.
Next off, when did the real science of climate change become “a matter of controversy”? And when did it become “anti-business” to recognize that in finding solutions to this crisis, that new opportunities may arise? The science is real: Nearly all scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that we humans are contributing to this. Oh yes, and even most businesses today recognize that they need to be a part of the solution not only to survive on this planet, but to also survive in the global marketplace. I guess these right-wingers who want to continue denying reality are the ones who are truly “anti-business”, as they don’t want our economy to remain competitive against other nations’ economies that have already adapted to the new environmental reality.
And finally, why must all of us who believe scientific reality be branded as “EnviroLeft extremists”? When did reason become “extreme”? When did science become “extreme”? And when did science denial become “normal”? I just don’t get that.
Maybe I’ll never be able to enlighten the folks at OC Blog who aspire to become the next Flat Earth Society in their extreme denial of scientific reality. Whatever… If they want to deny reality, let them. I just hope that we, as a society, never base public policy on the denial of reality. That’s all.
Gila-
You make a good point, although you fail to consider the ramifications of the public policy that would go hand-in-hand with these earth-friendly steps that you speak of.
To use your example:
Let’s pretend it’s 2030. Twenty years ago we invented a new tax (carbon tax) and imposed strict emission regulations on American industry, which drove more and more of our business to other nations like China. By 2000 we already knew the United States was due to lose its stature as the economic hegemon, but after we imposed those regulations it only became worse. China, India, Japan, Brazil, and the European Union all promised equivalent policies and practices, but never delivered. China and India were forecasted to take over the United States’ role as global economic leaders by 2050 but because of global warming policy decisions this is actually taking place now, and Brazil is coming barking at our doorstep. The Euro and the Yen are now the preferred international methods of currency, and the NYSE and the NASDAQ have become stagnant and weak. We find out that global warming wasn’t real but eh, what the hell right?
I’m not saying, I’m just saying….
Andrew-
Did you miss my challenge to a debate or are you just avoiding the inevibility of being caught empty-handed of empirical evidence to support your statements?
Better yet, I bet you’re trying to find that evidence. Keep looking.
“”"China and India were forecasted to take over the United States’ role as global economic leaders by 2050 but because of global warming policy decisions this is actually taking place now, and Brazil is coming barking at our doorstep. The Euro and the Yen are now the preferred international methods of currency, and the NYSE and the NASDAQ have become stagnant and weak.”"”
This is happening already because of globalization, not because of any steps we have or haven’t taken on global warming.
The fact of the matter is none of those countries will do anything of the sort, because there will be much less oil for them to grow with. China and India will have to begin planning for a world with limited oil supplies, just as we all will, but as of this date, aren’t.
Great method of reasoning Joe:
“It’s happening already, so what the hell?”
I wonder if your environmentalist friends would agree with that statement if “it” meant “global warming” instead of the decline of the United States economy.
d’Anconia:
China’s fuel efficiency standards were higher than ours back when they were first introduced in 2005 with this goal in mind, “regulate gas consumption and curb [China's] growing dependence on oil” check it out… http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9128
Yeah, we’re not doing so good on the fuel efficiency thing. Check this out too…
http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30249598.htm?=amp&_lite_=1
We’re already behind Canada, South Korea, Australia, China, the European Union and Japan.
Joe-
Great point! The US economy is already falling behind, and part of that reason is BECAUSE we aren’t investing enough in renewable energy and energy conservation measures as we should be… WHETHER OR NOT we want to factor in climate change. However, IT’S NOT TOO LATE. We can still invest in a clean energy future, and we can still find new American jobs AND new opportunities for American businesses.
d’Anconia-
Why even bother? If you won’t even trust the IPCC or NONPARTISAN NGO reports on climate change, then how else can you be convinced? Oh yes, and why must investing in clean energy be so “bad” for the economy? What about the new jobs that can be created, and all the new money invested in US companies working on new energy solutions? If we were smart about it, we’d turn this climate crisis into a BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY by investing in a clean energy future that’s good for the earth AND the economy!
Just sayin’…
d’Anconia — You’re right, there are public policy matters to be decided as we deal with climate change. But is “denial” or “do nothing” good public policy? I think it is not.
Let’s at least acknowledge that climate change may be occurring, that it may have some very bad effects on our lives, and that there are some things we can do to lessen these effects. Then we go forward from there. I think that position is more sensible than denial.
why do I get the feeling i am talking to a brick wall?
Because you are, Flowerszz.. Andrew states, as if it is fact, that the Sahara is expanding because of global warming.
I point him to a couple of articles pointing out there is evidence the opposite is happening, and that global warming may have a beneficial impact on the Sahara.
And all he can do is accuse me of spinning.
I’d much rather pay a little bit more now than a lot later.
Can you be more precise? How much is “a little bit now” in terms of economic costs?
China and India will have to begin planning for a world with limited oil supplies, just as we all will, but as of this date, aren’t.
Joe, with all due respect, we’ve been hearing predictions that we will imminently run out of oil for almost 40 years. But we haven’t, because we keep finding more.
It reminds me of those “scientific” forecasts that the Earth population growth rate was going to deplete our natural resources before the end of the century, destroy our environment and reduce everyone to poverty and rationing.
The planet’s population kept on growing, and none of those dire predictions came to pass.
Maybe you can understand my skepticism towards those who want to dramatically expand government, constrict our liberty, control and re-order our way of life based on some evidence of a change in global temperatures when the effects, duration and ultimate causes are not certain.
The US economy is already falling behind, and part of that reason is BECAUSE we aren’t investing enough in renewable energy and energy conservation measures as we should be…
Andrew, can you please substantiate that?
Oh yes, and why must investing in clean energy be so “bad†for the economy?
Andrew, maybe you can go beyond the sound bite and explain what “investing in clean energy” actually means to you in nuts-and-bolts policy terms. Until you do that, people can’t have a rational discussion about costs and benefits, etc.
Matt –
Actually the closing of the George’s Bank off of New England was due to overfishing; they are hoping an extended break will bring the fish populations back. Oil is a fiinite resource; how long are you going to hand on to the “they keep finding more” mantra.
Matt, are you at all skeptical of the anti-global warming guys, or do you buy they they say lock, stock and barrel?
Skeptisim is a 2 way street isn’t it?
Finally have time to locate and link to this piece, by Reason’s long-term science reporter http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html .
Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn’t over before, it is now. The question of what to do about it will be front and center in policy debates for the next couple of decades. How strongly humanity may want to mitigate future climate change and at what cost depends on how likely the worst case projections turn out to be.
In response to Jubal,
An example of ‘a little bit more now’ could include raising the federal gas tax and using that extra money to directly fund an “Apollo program” for alternative energy so we can raise fuel efficiency standards and thus, use less gas. If you added 10 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline being sold in America, you would raise $14,041,550,000 in one year.
Just in case, this is where I got the consumption figure from…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
Jason and Aunt Millie-
Thanks for all that good info! You make my job SO much easier!
Matt-
So you want specifics? Start here:
http://www.ea2020.org/
This is a truly grassroots projects of concerned citizens who are working on energy solutions that end our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce our carbon footprint, AND provide great jobs for American workers. Read some of the smart proposals over there, and then just try to call of us “job-killing, economically ignorant EnviroLeft extremists”.
Jason-
You misrepresent your own sources: “When completed it will make China’s fuel-consumption standards overall more strict than the United States’, the World Resources Institute said in a report.”
Key word is WHEN COMPLETED, which is very ambiguous especially considering we’re taking the Chinese government’s word for it.
Gila-
I am hardly arguing on the side of denial. I tend to believe that you wish me to do so because it makes it easier for the ones on the left to argue against me. Matter of fact is that there is NO DOUBT that climate change is ocurring, there is NO DOUBT humans impact our environment, and there is NO DOUBT that living in a more enviro-friendly way is better than not.
The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of your comrades are arguing for further restricting the American economy by imposing draconian emission regulations (that can NOT be met) and raising taxes! (e.g. Jason Bensley)
I believe in allowing the free market to adapt to the changes and move towards more enviro-friendly practices because the PUBLIC demands it, not because the GOVERNMENT requires them to.
Andrew-
Your response is not worthy of a rebuttal. I challenged you to a debate on the facts of the issue and you declined. Game over.
An example of ‘a little bit more now’ could include raising the federal gas tax and using that extra money to directly fund an “Apollo program†for alternative energy so we can raise fuel efficiency standards and thus, use less gas.
And this is where you and I would part company. No one really against developing alternative fuels. Crash government programs sound great when one invokes the Apollo project, but that’s much different than developing alternative fuels that people will use.
The Apollo program was straightforward get from Point A to Point B by Dec. 31, 1969.
But a crash government program to develop alternatives is wholly different. It involves government picking winners and losers among competing technologies, and whether the best technologies win out will have more to do with politics and lobbying than with which technologies are cost-efficient enough to be embraces by consumers.
Just look at ethanol. And you may too young to remember the Synthetic Fuels Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Fuels_Corporation.
It was a crash government program spawned from the 1979 oil crisis to develop alternative fuels to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil.
Jason-
Thank you, you just made my point.
Jubal-
Ditto.
I guess I my opinion is based on my belief in the federal government’s ability to achieve drastic results in specific technological areas when the necessity to do so arose, WWII, the Space Program/ballistic missile program, etc…I am not discounting that the private sector won’t ever take the necessary steps to make a transition away from the fossil fuel economy, I just think that they won’t do it fast enough without the government aggressively raising fuel efficiency standards and emissions standards.
Its the basic liberal vs. conservative economic argument, less regulated free market vs. more regulated free market.
I hope everyone noticed how assiduously Cunningham and the Deniers ignored the very substantive information in the http://www.realclimate.org/ link that refuted the cherry-picked weather station stuff that Jubal posted with his overblown rhetoric and the link to the long-time skeptic and excellent science journalist from Reason who now has acknowledged that the data regarding man-made global warming is settled.
As to where we go from here, people who have taken a look at where we are now, and how we might change our energy consumption have come up with some fairly comprehensive ideas. I lean very strongly towards market-based incentives with some modest government based competitive R & D investment and measurable goals. I sure don’t want to see more of the Bush era non-competitive bidding that rewards cronies, or support for corporate farmers in the ethanol program.
I’m somewhat optimistic that Peak Oil and rising fuel costs will provide much of the market incentive that we need. Without too much effort, my family has cut our electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and water usage by 40%.
I really hope that California passes the container tax so we can start generating the revenue that will help with an energy-efficient way of moving cargo inland with less externalities displaced onto our highway network and less pollution.
There’s plenty of information out there based on data and science. I apologize if I get angry when the no-nothings continue with their bullshit after the rest of the world has moved past their denial and begun to look at the opportunities and challenges that we need to face openly and honestly, with active participation from every element of society.
Aunt Millie:
It’s “Know-Nothing” and they are an antebellum anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant political party.
You might take a break from blurting profanities to pay attention to the point I originally made: the Left has no tolerance for those who express skepticisim about:
1) the existence of climate change/global warming
or
2 )the extent of global warming
3) the Left’s heavy-handed, command-and-control approach to dealing with it.
It’s a very simple point, and you and Andrew have proven it over and over again with your various over-the-top, condescending or vitriolic comments.
As for that website: I’m not avoiding, but I haven’t looked at it yet. I’d like to devote more than just a few minutes to it, so excuse me if my schedule isn’t accommodating your demand for immediate response.
Jubal,
YEs, I have no tolerance anymore for ideologues who express skepticism about the existence of man-made global warming. It’s proven science.
As to 2, there’s a wide range of opinions, as evidenced in the link to the Reason institute journalist
As to your third point, where you accuse me of agreeing with some mythical leftist command and control viewpoint, that;s just more of your delusional paranoid partisan bullshit.
There’s plenty of intelligent discourse on the subject, but you apparently have never found time to read any of it
And you are the one who began with nonsensical talk of jihadist enviros, whatever that means. More bullshit.
I guess I my opinion is based on my belief in the federal government’s ability to achieve drastic results in specific technological areas when the necessity to do so arose, WWII, the Space Program/ballistic missile program, etc…
But those had definitive ends. Germany and Japan surrendered. We landed on the Moon.
But when is climate change “defeated”? At what point do we land that man on the global warming moon and call it a day?
During WWII the federal government acquired massive powers over every aspect of life. Our success in turning the U.S. into the Arsenal of Democracy understandably created the popular belief that government was in many ways superior to the free market for organizing the economy. Many, if not most, Americans believed that if you focused the federal government on solving a problem, then it would succeed. After all, we did it in WWII, didn’t we?
But as it turns out, that model isn’t very applicable outside of trying to win a world war, or on a smaller scale with the space program , developing BMD or a weapon system.
I remember the SynFuels Corporation issue when I was a abnormally political teenager. I thought it made perfect sense…in theory, at least. After all ,the South Africans were doing that as a hedge against world isolation, and the Germans did it in WWII to compensate for being cut off from oil supplies.
If you just gave the scientists the money and set them to work, they’d figure it out. But like a lot of ideas that sound good in theory, it didn’t work. SynFuels just sucked down billions until being shuttered in 1985.
And Cunningham, thanks for correcting me on Know-nothings – that’s an appalling lack of editing on my part, and one I would have called anyone else on. As you are well aware, it’s tough to multi-task sometimes.
Perhaps I should have referred to the Denialists as Plug-Uglies.another criminal conspiracy that got involved in electoral politics, not dissimilar to Bush’s corrupt Republican party.
Aunt Millie: I didn’t accuse you specifically, because you obviously don’t belong in the command-and-control camp of draconian emissions controls, more taxes and regulations. But that’s the predominance of what I see coming out of the Left, and that’s what I was referring to.
As for the enviro-jihadists, I’ll remember that next time the icon of the Environmental Left, RFK Jr., describes anyone who disagrees with the Left on climate change as a “traitor.”
I do try to make time to read it. And when I found some interesting items on global warming and the Sahara and brought them to Andrew’s attention, he can only respond by accusing me of spinning. And you can’t seem to muster up much more than the word “bulls–t.”
Other wise, you are your usual eloquent self.
d’Anconia:
The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of your comrades are arguing for further restricting the American economy by imposing draconian emission regulations (that can NOT be met) and raising taxes! (e.g. Jason Bensley)
Personally, I have no problem with “the other side” arguing the need to be careful WRT policy that can negatively impact the economy. As I see it, it’s my job to raise the alarm and propose changes and it’s your job to make sure the changes don’t have unforeseen negative consequences. As I say, it’s the denial that bothers me. That and the “it’s happening but we can’t do anything because 1 rich guy will suffer” approach.
I believe in allowing the free market to adapt to the changes and move towards more enviro-friendly practices because the PUBLIC demands it, not because the GOVERNMENT requires them to.
To illustrate the problem I see with that I like to use the example of smoking in public. Not so many years ago people could smoke almost anywhere: airplanes, retail stores, public buildings, offices. Non-smokers hated it but “smokers’ rights” were championed. Finally laws were passed that restricted smoking in most public places.
These days I think almost everyone, including a fair number of smokers, agree that people shouldn’t smoke in most public places. The free market didn’t cause us to have a secondhand smoke-free environment. Laws did.
I would like it very much if the free market really did take care of problems like exposure to secondhand smoke, climate change, etc. But I see little evidence that it does.
Aunt Millie-
Matt may call your comments “profane”, but I find them to be PROFOUND. You’ve really been rocking this thread with common-sense, fact-based knowledge on climate change. Thanks for injecting some reality into this debate!
Matt-
Again, I have no problem tolerating your comments. I just don’t accept them as realistic and fact-based. And guess what? Just as you have the right to say whatever you want here, I have the right to decide for myself what to think of what you say.
And sorry, but you still haven’t come up with any fact-based argument to refute what Aunt Millie, Dan, Jason, Gila, AND I have said. So while you may still be debating in your head whether or not the climate crisis is real, all the rest of us will actually be thinking of ways to SOLVE IT. And hopefully soon, the nation will join the rest of the world (AND the State of California) in moving beyond the “debate” on whether or not the crisis is “real”, and toward solutions that keep our economy strong and our planet alive.
Jubal,
You’re right, we need a specific goal, some way of “winning” One way to “declare victory” would be to first become completely energy independent as a nation. And from there, become completely free of fossil fuels altogether.
Right now we are 60% dependent on foreign oil, if we cut our gasoline consumption in half by doubling our fuel efficiency, which accounts for 45% of our petroleum consumption, then we’d be 37.5% dependent, right?
Say we use 100 barrels of petroleum a day. We get 60 from foreign producers and we produce 40. We use 45 of these to run our automobiles. If we only used 22.5, then we’d only be using 77.5, and thus we’d only need to import 37.5.
Jason-
Those are quite impressive “achievable goals”. Good job. Mission accomplished!
Matt-
Any more excuses as to why you still want to call all of us reality-based people “EnviroLeft extremists”? I think we just shattered your imposed stereotype of us into smitherines.
Gila-
While I understand your frustration with the “denialists”, you have to understand that much of THEIR frustration is rooted on the extreme nature of the argument made by the “alarmists”.
I agree that living in a more environment-friendly way should be a goal to strive for, but I absolutely dismiss any claim that sea levels could rise by 30 ft in the next century or that global warming spells the end of the world as we know it. You and I both know those are bogus claims.
You have to understand that one of the reasons this argument becomes so heated is because “denialists” are disgusted and offended by the hysterical propaganda that is “An Inconvenient Truth” and such.
I strongly disagree with lying to the public in order to convince them on bad public policy. All jokes about the War in Iraq aside, the public does not need to be oversold on global warming, and that’s what a lot of the folks on your side seem to be ok with.
Jason-
“One way to “declare victory†would be to first become completely energy independent as a nation. And from there, become completely free of fossil fuels altogether. ”
Those are not bad goals, although I doubt we would agree on a timeline or how to achieve them.
How about this, you want a solution?
Make ALL research in alternative fuel and energy efficiency tax exempt.
You choose taxes, I choose incentives.
Andrew,
Jubal drives me nuts. Based on many of his comments at OCBlog, he’s a smart and decent guy. After six and a half years, he’s finally getting angry about the fiscal mess that Republicans have created in Washington. Yet he is so remarkably behind the curve on Bush’s failed war, Peak Oil, and Global Climate Change that it provokes unseemly language.
I hope that you will also follow some of the dialogue about this issue and look at the incredibly fertile opportunities that lie beyond partsanship.
For me this is the moral crisis of our time, and one where we need to take action.
My spouse and I are sending, as a charitable contribution, 25 shares of Cheveron/Tecaxo to Greenpeace to fund their informational efforts on Global warming. It’s our penance for using our “liberal” knowledge as a very successful investment hypothesis.
Meanwhile, we have loved ones on active duty in Iraq. Would everyone here take a second to include them in their praryers?
And let me comment briefly about Anconia’s comments about the exaggerations by “your side”. There are lots of stupid things said by individuals, but I really hope that when it comes to the future of the planet, we’re all on the pro-life side.
Aunt Millie-
Agreed. If we ever want to get something done on important issues like climate change, we need to get beyond the bitter partisan politics that has characterized the Bush-Cheney-Rove era, and begin working together as ONE NATION to find common-sense solutions. Now I know this sounds weird coming out of the mouth of a VERY partisan Democrat, but ultimately we ALL will need to put our differences aside, and begin doing what’s best for our nation and our planet.
Oh, and thank you for contributing that Chevron stock to Greenpeace. Now THAT is what I call “paying it forward”! Oh yes, and I’m always thinking about the troops. I hope we can bring them all back home safely and soon, and I hope we will remember to take care of them as they’ve taken care of us in their military service.
Thanks for putting it all into perspective, Aunt Millie.
Andrew,
Whenever you post, an angel gets his wings.
Excuse me Andrew. I miswrote,
Whenever you post, an angel gets her wings.
Aunt Millie-
Thanks! I’m blushing! And no, that’s NOT BS!
No really, you’re the best. Keep those PROFOUND comments coming.
Matt may call your comments “profaneâ€Â, but I find them to be PROFOUND.
Andrew: you find the word “bulls–t” to be profound?
And sorry, but you still haven’t come up with any fact-based argument to refute what Aunt Millie, Dan, Jason, Gila, AND I have said.
You stated the Sahara is expanding because of global warming. I pointed you to two articles indicating the opposite may well be true. They were not from political or conservative outlets. Yet you’ve completely ignored them. Is it because they cast serious doubt on your claim? I don’t know, because you ignore them.
Jason:
I wish it were as simple as that. But we can’t simply ignore the economic costs of the kinds of approaches that say “cars will get X mile-per-gallon by 2010″ or “emission will be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2012.”
Back in the 1960s, liberals thought the problem of solving poverty was simply a matter of spending enough money. Leading liberal lights honestly thought, “if you have X number of poor people, and it takes Y dollars per person to lift them out of poverty, then multiply X times Y and that’s how much it will cost to eradicate poverty.” It makes sense on paper — give every poor person a check that will lift them out of poverty and bammo! no more poverty. But it ignores human nature and the reality of poverty, and so doesn’t work.
I understand the attraction of plans like “if we just raise CAFE standards by this much and cut oil consumption by this much, etc.”, but the trick, I think, is coming up with solutions that are consonant with individual liberty and limited government.
the trick, I think, is coming up with solutions that are consonant with individual liberty and limited government.
Exactly, Jubal, the kind of solutions that progressives are advocating and that the Bush Republicans have defiled.
Based on many of his comments at OCBlog, he’s a smart and decent guy.
Thank you. Even my wife would agree with you — most of the time.;)
After six and a half years, he’s finally getting angry about the fiscal mess that Republicans have created in Washington.
No, I’ve been angry about it much longer than that. I just don’t write much about it because try to limit my OC Blog postings to OC issues, and only occasionally break out into national issues.
The last few years were a depressing exercise in the corrupting nature of being in power too long. I mean, what was the point of having a Republican Congress and a GOP Prez if they Presdient refused to exert fiscal discipline on a Republican Congress that acted like Democrats.
Yet he is so remarkably behind the curve on Bush’s failed war, Peak Oil, and Global Climate Change that it provokes unseemly language.
I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied” mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.
I don’t know what you mean by Peak Oil, and I don’t differ so much the existence of climate change as I am skeptical of those who want to just “do something, anything!” when so much is not understood about the whole phenomenon. I’ve been critical of the Left for their vitriol and condescension towards those who disagree with them in whole or in part on climate change, and that is somehow taken as denying the existence of climate change..
but ultimately we ALL will need to put our differences aside, and begin doing what’s best for our nation and our planet.
That sounds strange coming fro a guy who brands anyone who disagrees with him on this issue as irrational and living in a fantasy world. Who exactly will have to put aside their differences, Andrew?
Matt Cunningham, in his Heinleinian persona, sez,
>i>I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied†mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.
Wrong again, bub, but I can’t respond to this because we have loved ones on active duty in Iraq, and their safety is all we pray for when the topic arises.
Matt-
Give it up. Your spin is wearing us all out! Again, you’re pushing this excuse that it’s OK to speak “dissent” against climate change, but NOT on the Iraq occupation. Puh-leese!
Aunt Millie-
Keep telling it like it is! We progressives support the troops. THAT’S WHY WE WANT TO BRING THEM HOME SAFELY AND SOON. And come on now, “support the troops” doesn’t mean voting for Republicans and sticking a yellow ribbon on one’s SUV. It means making sure our troops have the equipment they need to succeed, and it means that they are ONLY sent out to take on real threats. Thanks for reminding us of that, Aunt Millie.
And Everyone-
Thanks for the discussion! Most of you (you know who you are) have been great in creating this fantastic and VERY informative discussion. You all rock! Bask in the glow of breaking all Liberal OC records in most responses to a story!
yeah but Andrew half of them were your replies to mille asking for high fives…lol.
I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied†mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.
Considering that opposition to the war is now in the 70% range I would say it is more than than the anti-war left that believes this foreign policy nightmare is exactly that.
You are going to tell us with a straight face that Bush and Co. used massaged intel to gain public support for the war? Are you?
That’s quite a stretch given what is known now and how folks like Powell are trying to put as much distance as possible between them and Bush.
You speak of progress in Iraq. What is the goal where we can all say “we landed on the moon” and now we can leave Iraq? More importantly how much are we willing to pay for it? Wars are expensive. Our fiscally conservative president in coordination with a fiscally conservative congress ran up the national card to the point where we are now vulnerable to Chinese hegemony influencing our fiscal and trade policy. All this after inheriting a surplus with a plan to pay off the national debt in ten years.
Something else that a Dem president will have to clean up.
I’ve been trying to figure out why Andrew replies to just about every comment made to one of his posts.
Turns out he was trying to set some sort of record.
Explains the comments that served no real purpose and failed to advance or defend any sort of argument.
Congratulations on your new record, Andrew.
SAD!!