| Author | Post |
|---|
lobster
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:36 pm |
|
coming from an intelligent person like you, thank you, i can tell you are smarter than the average bear, i read some of your know everything posts
|
AvaL
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1417 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
lobster wrote: i think all you obummer fans need to have another sip of kool ade
This is extremely creative, and original. I congratulate you.
|
lobster
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
i think all you obummer fans need to have another sip of kool ade
|
flsr
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:37 pm |
|
Joe Bltzlflk wrote: flsr wrote: ...Maybe you should be checking out Gore's and Pelosi's investment goals which will make them richer with this legislation.
I don't have any way to do that, and neither do you or anyone else. I doubt they go around wearing their investment goals on their forehead. I do know that Gore is already rich because of his investment in the Current TV network, and that he spends a lot of his own money working to warn the world about global warming. I also know that Gore is not in a position to affect any legislation since he no longer holds any office. I don't have a clue about Pelosi, or even what she has to do with this other than being the dummy-right's latest whipping gal.
But, even if by some wild-ass stretch of the imagination you are even close to being right, what's wrong with making money? Any legislation would be in the open; if you know so much about their goals, just invest in the same things they do, and you will be rich, too. Then, you won't have to worry about taxes and such.
What may be wrong with making money in this way is trying to steer legislation for personal gain. I wish the powers that be would nail them good for conflict of interest issues.
|
flsr
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:34 pm |
|
Cap-and-Trade Is About Power and Control
Friday , June 26, 2009
By Glenn Beck
get_a(300,250,"frame1");
ADVERTISEMENT
It's Friday! What are your plans? Dinner? Blockbuster movie? Hey, you could always read the 1,500-page cap-and-trade bill — that's 1,200 plus 300 in amendments.
Here's the one thing tonight: While America enjoys a Friday watching "Transformers," the country is being transformed behind our backs.
The House is sneaking in a vote on the mammoth 1,500 page Waxman-Markey climate change bill.
Why are they burying this vote on a Friday?
It could be because earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001 — despite an increase in CO2 emissions (that's an inconvenient stat), helping to swell the number of skeptical scientists to over 700 — or 13 times the scientists who wrote the supposed consensus.
It could be because more Americans are figuring out that this energy policy is just an energy tax and guaranteed to do only one thing: Raise energy prices for consumers.
But don't take my word on that claim, take it from President Obama:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Why, in the middle of a global economic crisis, would we even consider a bill that the Wall Street Journal says would be "the biggest tax in American history"?
Because it's not about saving the cute, fuzzy, man-eating polar bears, the spotted owl, the cumulus clouds or the caribou. The science is not settled on this at all — not even close.
This is about power, money and control.
But America is caught up with "Hey, did you hear? Michael Jackson is dead!"
Concentrate on things that are important, like those who are pushing this energy bill stand to gain the most from it:
• Nancy Pelosi has $50,000 to $100,000 in Clean Energy Fuels Corp.
• Rep. Edward Markey — hmm, why does that name sound familiar? — has investments between $51,000 and $115,000 in the Firsthand Technology Value Fund (which as three solar-energy manufacturers)
• Al Gore — Mr. "Inconvenient Truth" himself — his venture capital firm is heavily invested in a new software company that's making software to help companies track their carbon footprint. He, and companies like his, will make a fortune.
Not only will this bill make politicians rich, it will increase their power as well. The government will control what you can and cannot do.
Want an SUV? Oh, sorry. Gas mileage isn't good enough.
How about incandescent light bulbs? They use too much energy.
Quarter-pounder with cheese? Meat is even more harmful than the SUV!
This bill is a gateway; it will be used as justification to regulate every industry or product the government can get their grimy little fingers on.
Politicians get rich. Government gets more power and control. Businesses just pass on the cost — so there is only one loser: you, the consumer.
The worst part is, we aren't breaking new ground here. While we're busy marching towards more socialism, the rest of the world is running away from it because they've tried it.
Australia is killing their carbon tax proposals and it's already a complete failure in Spain, where it's resulted in an 18.1 percent unemployment rate (more than double Europe's average) and they are losing 2.2 jobs per every one "green job" created.
I think The New York Times quote on the European Union's cap-and-trade program (that started in 2005) says it all: "Their plan unleashed a lobbying free-for-all that led politicians to dole out favors to various industries, undermining the environmental goals. Four years later, it is becoming clear that system has so far produced little noticeable benefit to the climate, but generated a multi-billion dollar windfall for some of the continent's biggest polluters."
|
Joe Bltzlflk
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Okeechobee |
| Posts: | 616 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
flsr wrote: ...Maybe you should be checking out Gore's and Pelosi's investment goals which will make them richer with this legislation.
I don't have any way to do that, and neither do you or anyone else. I doubt they go around wearing their investment goals on their forehead. I do know that Gore is already rich because of his investment in the Current TV network, and that he spends a lot of his own money working to warn the world about global warming. I also know that Gore is not in a position to affect any legislation since he no longer holds any office. I don't have a clue about Pelosi, or even what she has to do with this other than being the dummy-right's latest whipping gal.
But, even if by some wild-ass stretch of the imagination you are even close to being right, what's wrong with making money? Any legislation would be in the open; if you know so much about their goals, just invest in the same things they do, and you will be rich, too. Then, you won't have to worry about taxes and such.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:44 pm by Joe Bltzlflk
|
flsr
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:08 pm |
|
Joe Bltzlflk wrote: The penalty to civilization if we do not pay attention to this threat is much greater than the "penalty" paid by businesses to do the right thing. Get your head out of your butt.
Your reply is uncivil, but that's okay by me. You evidently just pulled your own out but forgot to wash off the debris.
I think it is prudent to be thrifty about using any of the earth's resources, but I don't think we need to be punished/taxed in the process. Maybe you should be checking out Gore's and Pelosi's investment goals which will make them richer with this legislation.
|
Joe Bltzlflk
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Okeechobee |
| Posts: | 616 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 03:07 pm |
|
The penalty to civilization if we do not pay attention to this threat is much greater than the "penalty" paid by businesses to do the right thing. Get your head out of your butt.
|
flsr
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
Joe Bltzlflk wrote: Right. And the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of the universe. How do I know? well, the conservatives once declared it so -- just like they say there is not global warming, as the ice melts.
Since you obviously believe it is a great big concern you may have my share of the cap and trade tax increase, and other increases, that will result to "fix" the problem. The penalties to businesses that will be the result of this legislation, also, is something that will be wonderful for the economy. Maybe you could adopt several families who will undoubtedly be unemployed as a result, also.
|
Joe Bltzlflk
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Okeechobee |
| Posts: | 616 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 03:52 am |
|
Right. And the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of the universe. How do I know? well, the conservatives once declared it so -- just like they say there is not global warming, as the ice melts.
|
pops
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 1632 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 02:58 am |
|
Back to vehicle inspections!
|
flsr
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 01:39 pm |
|
EPA's Game of Global Warming Hide-and-Seek
Michelle Malkin
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Obama administration doesn't want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don't want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion, thousand-page "cap and trade" bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.
The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama's willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of "consensus." In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health "endangerment finding" covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin's study didn't fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn't make the cut.
On March 12, Carlin's director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having "any direct communication" with anyone outside his office about his study. "There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency's climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:
"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."
Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the "process" of ramming the EPA's endangerment finding through. Truth in science took a back seat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from "a very negative impact."
In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."
But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do -- "move forward on endangerment." Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested "comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings." Jackson, meet Carlin.
The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) "is an individual who is not a scientist." Neither is Al Gore. Nor is energy czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin's analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, "significant new research" related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA's reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won't be different than in the past.
But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can't hear you.
In April, President Obama declared that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over." Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or "retired" by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.
|
Current time is 12:45 pm | |
|
|
|