In the vernacular of Naval Aviation, John McCain no doubt “packed the gear” as a fighter pilot. But the North Vietnamese captured him, hung him up by his thumbs and broke him. He was, perhaps justly, called a hero when he returned but nobody expected him to go the flight line, “strap in” and fly. Neither should he be running the free world, and certainly not my America. He became an idealist who sees Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaida as fraternity brothers and illegal immigration as our responsibility to the Mexican peonage. No water-boarding? Case by case extradition? Give me a break. We have to have a president who will push the button, even if it is Hillary Clinton.
McCain and Giuliani are friends, but don’t expect McCain to pick him for veep. McCain will have little choice but to pick a Southern establishment, rightwing figure, to shore up his base down South, where many hardcore conservative Republicans are not enthused by him. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Giuliani in the cabinet, though. Probably AG. Chertoff (another Giuliani friend) will stick around as HSA if a GOPer wins.
From the very beginning I warned Giuliani backers that he was an outside longshot to win the GOP nod. His socially liberal, politically pragmatic, northeastern, New Yorker background was too much baggage for the nod in a GOP that is today extremely theocratic and conservative.
If your only issue, or at least number one issue, is the GWOT, then really any of the GOPers (and the Dems) will fill the bill. The Washington establishment has bought into the GWOT hook, line, and sinker. It is the new Cold War, replete with an entire economic sector completely dependent on trillions in taxpayer money and loyal to whomever is “prepared to take the fight to the enemy.” It is heavily lobbied for by AIPAC, the largest lobbying group in DC, as well as the MIC and Big Oil, traditionally extremely powerful and influential groups.
So, don’t cry for Rudy, Tygrrrr-ina. Your cause remains, and the only people crying should be the taxpayers, the countless victims of the GWOT, and people who love the constitution.
Oh, and Edwards just dropped out. He was my second guy to Richardson. now it looks like the Dems are going to find a way to lose once again, with either a woman who is loathed (for no rational reason) by half the country (they watch a lot of Fox “News” apparently), and a black man named Obama, who will bring out more racist anti-voters than since the 1878 elections. If McCain wins the nod, he will probably be the next president.
Prayers to them , but they are not “countless’. As a matter of fact they are in the thousands. While what is “TRULY” countless are the victims of terror which goes into the millions.
We have documented well how many Americans have died since 911.
terror has killed millions for decades now.
You try to not exagerate and bloat everything you say when its obvious how wrong you are.
In September 2007, Opinion Business Research, an independent polling agency based in London, published a report estimating 1,220,580 total Iraqis killed as a result of violence, with a range due to margin of error at 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of
946,000 to 1,120,000
Insurgent attacks are terrorism.
Do some research, you profess to be so keen on history you should know that the number of people killed by terrorism since the 1800s far far outnumbers the deaths due to Bushs war on terror.
Look Jeresy, I want born yesterday , so stop talking to me like I was some kind of shmuck. The ‘resistance” as you call it use terror tactics, no uniform, IEDs, homicide bombers, kill innocents etc…
Its terrorism , period. Look in the dictionary.
Activities of al-Qaeda in Somalia had begun as early as 1992. The organization’s role during the course of the 1992–1994 UN missions was limited to a handful of trainers. Ali Mohamed and other al-Qaeda members purportedly trained forces loyal to warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. Osama bin Laden himself claimed in an interview with ABC’s John Miller to have sent al-Qaeda operatives to Somalia. One of the al-Qaeda fighters present during the interview claimed to have personally slit the throats of three American soldiers in Somalia.
This is the second of a two part series on Islamism and Terrorism in Darfur.
The conflict in Darfur is closely tied to the War on Terrorism, largely because the influence of the U.S. to deter ethnic and political violence in the region has been compromised by its growing security alliance with Sudan’s ruling Islamists.
Although it has been a decade since al-Qaeda operated within Sudan, the nation has been an important recruiting ground with its pool of young men indoctrinated in the government’s jihadist ideology.
These two countries are sponsors of terrorism and they allow it and they enable it.
Which is all the same to me.
the point is that my numbers are FAR FAR greater than yours.
The deaths due to Bushs war on terror are miniscule compared to amount killed by terrorist.
Your numbers are a fly on the butt of all the deaths due to terrorism
“I backed John McCain in 2000. He was my second choice in 2008.”
Sounds like you and I think alike.
I am despondent over the demise of the Giuliani presidential campaign, mainly because I think that its wounds were largely self-inflicted. Simply put, I htink that he ran the worst primary campaign I’ve ever seen. From a strategy standpoint, it was spectacularly bad.
Hillary is NOT “loathed for no reason”. I can’t stand her because she will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine”, will push for socialized medicine, will be as anti-Israel as she can be, etc.
That said……………….I think that she is likely going to win anyway. Let me ask you (and everyone else) this: When do the Clintons EVER lose campaigns? If she loses to either Obama or the Republican nominee in November, I believe that it will be the first time.
Ignoring the usual troling, Welcome aboard Eric. Glad to have you with us. Don’t expect McCain to give Giuliani the Veep slot. I have a suspicion that John will do a Reagan, and nominate Romney to be his Veep, just as Reagan nominated HW Bush to be his Veep in 1980. Look for Rudy to be either DHS or AG.
I agree. There’s a reason, alright. The reason is the comic-bookish view of reality shared by your average shmuck. Hillary is the Hildabeast and Shrillary and every other low-brow, adolescent condescension the rightwing and Fox “News” can come up with if they think really hard.
“I can’t stand her because she will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine”,”
Nonsense. Absolute silly nonsense. The congress isn’t even vaguely considering such a thing. It’s a silly, paranoid, planted psuedo-issue invented recently by a GOP reeling from early political mortality.
“will push for socialized medicine, will be as anti-Israel as she can be, etc.”
She’s completely pro-Israel and only a person who is completely ignorant of her record would think otherwise, and among her biggest backers are Big Pharma and Big Insurance, so you can forget about truly “socialized” medicine. Her plan is more like Romney’s in Mass – mandatory healthcare. Personally, I’d prefer the status quo. We can’t afford another Medicare-D type of debacle. Believe me, the parmies and insurance have no complaints about that giveaway.
“When do the Clintons EVER lose campaigns?”
You can’t go back in history in that way. That’s like when sports broadcasters say things like, “Well, over the past 30 years the Cowboys have done better in the playoffs than the Browns…” It doesn’t really tell you anything. Be it Hillary or Obama, McCain or Romney, I don;t see any big changes coming for America for awhile. We’re a little broke, a little nervous, the global neighborhood is pissed off at us, our dollar value is sinking, we’re depended on our poorer, bigger neighbors. It’s not a pretty picture. I don’t like any of the four top candidates. I think, perhaps, McCain would feel the weight of the office. Huckabee, who knows, but I think he won’t make it. Romney is an establishment hack. Hillary would probably make a decent president, even to conservatives and even if they won’t admit it. Obama? Who knows?
“If she loses to either Obama or the Republican nominee in November, I believe that it will be the first time.”
No, Clinton lost one years ago in Arkansas. He bounced back and hence the “Comeback Kid” was first borne. This was like 81 or 82, or something. From 84 on, the establishment Dems and Blue Dogs and the DLC started grooming him for the presidency.
That would be something. Romney does have some things McCain needs.
The veep nom will be a candidate that appeals to the establishment but delivers votes from states that actually care about McCain’s “liberal” record – like campaign, immigration, and tax reform. McCain needs the wealthy and he knows Hillary will have a lot of them. Romney would be a mixed holding there.
I’ll give a shot anyway. I’m bored.
Obamas muslim ties to his cousin and brother in Africa will come to front soon along with his greeness and then the truly paranoid people out there will move to Hillary. That will make the difference for Hillary since I think Edwards supporters are now going to migrate to Hillary also.
About two months before the general McCain will start soaking the voters on how his experience and time on the hill is far superior to hillarys stint as first lady and just a few years on the hill. To be mixed in with all her trash .
And we’ll be looking at McCain in 09
I can’t believe it has come down to this. Is anyone hearing John McCain’s Cap and Trade bullshinola?
Glen Beck did a great intro to his show this morning where he played Bad GOP Radio Guy stepping all over sad music to lament the McCain victory in Florida. His station manager kept calling him and praising McCain even though the day before he had disagreed with much of McCain’s positions. In other words, the bit was about bandwagon politics and nailed it perfectly.
McCain is the worst candidate to face the Democrats. How do I know?
1. The Democrat have been saying that they fear him for years.
2. The Democrats always lie.
3. The Democrats don’t fear him.
All hail the Lizard Queen!!! (Or Magic Negro–whichever)
“Yeah. And these front-loaded primaries are producing terrible candidates. Terrible.” It is sad to recognize that the Dems have the experience of a one term Senator and another whose claim to fame is running for president the day he took a seat in the Senate – of course, that wasn’t really his fault – he was the anointed one. The Reps don’t have a republican candidate except ermine Paul, but he doesn’t represent the spirit of America… It’s not bad that others bring up McCain’s military service and 5 year internment, but when he keeps using it as aqualifier for POTUS, I cringe.
“2. The Democrats always lie.”
My god, that means they’re all republicans. Yikes!
This is it folks, face it. The dems are going to have to make a choice between lesser evils. And the cons are going to have to chose between better evils
Chris, I personally prefer McCain to Romney, and I could see myself voting for McCain is the Hill looks like it’s going heavily to the Dems. I don’t think I could vote from Romney no matter what. Huckabee? Maybe.
The Dems seem to fear McCain more than Romney if their recent rhetoric is any clue. but the Dems have a serious problem – both their remaining contenders will have a very hard time overcoming the negative “anti-vote.” Hillary is just absolutely hated by about half the populace and Obama is black and is named Obama. Either of them would probably make at least competent presidents, niether is particularly radical or innovative, but they have a tough fight in front of them. Mysogyny and racism are still ubiquitous forces in America.
Of course you like McCain. He’s a liberal. Not a hard leftist like Hillary or Obama, but a New Deal style liberal who does things for “patriotism, not profit”. So, he has the same exact problem Hillary does–there’s a bunch of people who despise him. Except McCain’s haters are in his own party. If you can’t bring out the base, you can’t win.
That’s just silly. He’s far from liberal. I like him, like most people I suppose, because he has most always seemed honest, stuck by his convictions, and seems to genuinely want the best thing for the nation as opposed to just for himself or the top .5% moneymakers.
“Not a hard leftist like Hillary or Obama”
That’s just ludicrous. You obviously don’t even know what a “leftist” is. I’m a “leftist,” I suppose, and I can tell you that Hillary and Obama are not nearly, by any stretch of the imagination, “left” enough for me.
“So, he has the same exact problem Hillary does–there’s a bunch of people who despise him. Except McCain’s haters are in his own party”
Finally, a sane point. But he seems to be working around them. I think McCain is proving that actually its a very small number of pols and pundits that “hate” him and that most regular GOP voters don’t feel that way. Besides, the GOP voters know that if they run another Bush-type, they’ll lose in November.
I know good and well what a leftist is. Unlike most people, I don’t let my definitions change with the wind. McCain pushes class warfare, global warming, amnesty, censorship and demeans the profit motive. Just because he’s center/right on a few issues does not negate those. One can be for any single one of them and not be a leftist, but one can not be for them all and still call oneself a conservative.
BTW, I would think you wouldn’t have a problem with the lable. Aren’t you a proud leftist?
Per McCain’s Global Warming… that’s the second time in a week I’ve heard him say something to the effect of “we absolutely need to do something about greenhouse gases. Even if we aren’t going through a climate change, we are making the air cleaner for our children”… Pander to the public and have it both ways. I’m not anit-McCain yet, but I’m getting more skeptical… talk me out of it…
McCain is also a liar. He and Kennedy tried to sneak that abominable comprehensive immigration bill thru last summer and swore to high heaven that it wasn’t amnesty. Even worse is his hiring Juan Hernandez – that shill for Mexico.
He has slapped the GOP base once (?) too often, and to borrow a phrase, It ain’t over ’till it’s over.” So far he has 97 delegates. To get the nomination he needs 1191. That’s a long way to go and if enough of us get behind Romney, maybe we can still get a more palatable candidate. I’m sooooo tired of holding my nose.
PS to Chris,
Thanks for the new word added to my vocabulary – bullshinola. :-)
Chris, I think you haven’t a clue what a leftist is and what John McCain is all about. Must be too much Limbaugh…
Al, I guess thousands of scientists don;t have the clout of a few rightingnuts and conflicted interests, huh? And even if you don;t believe in Global Warming, surely you’re not a big fan of pollution? Surely you’re not a big fan of oil dependence? Surely you’re not a big fan of dwindling fisheries? Right?
Jersey, I’ve read conflicting reports, and since I’m not a scientist, and the scientists don’t seem to agree, I’d say the jury is still out on global warming. It, like the economy, housing, and stock market, are always fluctuating and adjusting. You have to admit that our universe is pretty balanced – when one thing cools off too much, another one heats up… it’s like rebuttals in a blog…
I’m not for oil dependence, dirty air, or shrinking fisheries, but I’m not a cartoon character from the comics you so often cite! I think we have fairly reasonable standards for pollution control. It may not be this black and white, but if we demand cleaner air, we’re going to pay somewhere…so how clean is clean enough? I run outside almost every day – and I have run in and around most cities throughout the country. I haven’t had any problems except around Jacksonville, FL during the fires this past summer. Of course, I’ve never run around LA, so I can’t speak from experience… But I digress… my point is that McCain seems to want it both ways – rather than simply committing to being a Global Warming advocate or naysayer, he’s hedging… that’s my problem. Say you’re for or against, or say you don’t know yet – but it’s a tough sell to buy it both ways.
Yea , but its the way we move away from that dirty energy and how the solutions are being pitched.
I’m sure no one has a problem with a clean planet.
But dont make up some disease just so we’ll all go to the doctor more often.
If theres a ton of money to be made in the green sector , so be it . But dont try to scare me into any initiatives or overblown get quick rich scams at the cost of my familys future.
Carbon credits? windmills ? What a joke.
Micky2, Your comment, “…theres a ton of money to be made in the green sector…” reminds me about all the bandwagon bandits talking about green collar jobs… are we talking about Jose and Juanita’s lawn services? Seriously, though – good point about the fox and henhouse (make up disease)… I took my Shepard into the vet a few weeks ago and told him she’d been throwing up, and it may because she’s been eating paper out of the garbage.$750 and two visits later, I spent $15 on a new trash can with a lid… she quit eating the paper and quit throwing up… Of course, that’s one less scrap of paper to burn and pollute the planet…we almost had the recycling thing figured out in my own little world…
“and it may because she’s been eating paper out of the garbage.$750 and two visits later, I spent $15 on a new trash can with a lid… she quit eating the paper and quit throwing up…’
I worked retail for a couple onths when I was a kid.
Some guy used to come in for about a week and fill suitcases up with merchandise and then go up front , empty the suitcase and dump it all in front of the registers and then walk out .
We finally figured out he was stealing suitcases.
Telling me I don’t have a clue what a leftist is without indicating in any way why that’s the case is mere bloviating. I’d love to hear why McCain isn’t a liberal. I gave my reasons why he is. Now you counter that with reasons why he’s not.
Micky, I worked for two of the biggest container lines in the world for a decade. Scrap paper, plastic, metal, and parts are big business abroad. Our junk is their raw material. As you say, domestic industrial recycling is not very profitable. But recyling materials exports is a healthy, albeit marginal, commodities trade. It’s worth it just for that, let alone the savings on limited natural resources. Scrap is one of our top exports – and believe you me, we need more exporting!
Well, Chris, for starters he’s a REPUBLICAN. There hasn’t been a liberal republican since Lincoln. ;) He’s a life-long, old fashioned, conservative deficit hawk. He’s against all “pork,” as if it were all bad by definition, including sound infrastructural development. He’s a hawk on foreign policy, always has been, always will. He’s a small-government/lower-taxes/less-regulation (every other vacuus conservative hyphenation) Reaganite. Etc, etc,…
If he’s liberal then what the h@!! am I? An alien from outer space??? He’s a conservative, alright. Establishment guys don’t like him because he’s a maverick and he doesn’t tolerate corruption. The GOP establishment and all their little pals in the corporate rightwing media have been deeply corrupted but some very malevolent interests. McCain scares the heck out of them. He’ll go after all those crooked contracts Bush used to funnel discretary spending to his pals. But unfortunately, he’ll probably have to coopt some too. The rightwing base should not have a distaste for McCain or fear his possible presidency. The rightwing establishment better start cleaning house.
We went through this jersey a few months ago and you got your ass kicked all over creation on this issue. You started by trying to tell me that our paper use was killing the rain forests in South America.
All recycling as a matter of fact is a nasty dirty self serving buisiness. The only sector that has proved worth it due to the cost being relevant is metal recycling.
The rest of it is all a sham .Paper recycling has proven to be far worse than the problem it was designed to aleviate. The rinsing and reclaiming of paper is far worse for the environment than simply planting new pulpwood trees. Also it is very cost innefficiant as most recycled paper goods on the shelves are never sold ue to the high cost and eventually tossed.
America has a lot of exportable goods that do not have to be second hand shams.
Recycling has taken on a life of its own, and in the popular culture, has become a lesser god in the pantheon of environmental gods. As the gods of antiquity have their mythology, so has a mythology developed surrounding recycling. Daniel K. Benjamin’s “Eight Great Myths of Recycling” does not have the literary quality of Bulfinch’s Mythology, but does present compelling information putting the recycling myths in perspective.
Space prevents examining each myth in depth, but a brief explanation is possible. Myth One – Our garbage will bury us. Fact – landfill capacity is increasing, not decreasing; 100 sections will handle the U.S. trash disposal for the next 100 years.
Myth Two – Our garbage will poison us. Fact – EPA acknowledges that the risks to humans from modern landfills are virtually nonexistent.
Myth Three – Packaging is our problem. Fact – Modern packaging saves breakage and waste, reducing disposal requirements; advances in packaging have drastically reduced the volume of a given package.
Myth Four – We must achieve trash independence. Fact – Trade in trash raises our nation’s wealth by as much as $4 billion; most of the benefit accrues to citizens of areas that import trash.
Myth Five – We squander irreplaceable resources when we don’t recycle. Fact – Price controls the use of resources. Resources are used but remain available; human ingenuity is the reason.
Myth Six – Recycling always protects the environment. Fact – The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment stated that recycling changes the nature of pollution, sometimes increasing it and sometimes decreasing it.
Myth Seven – Recycling saves resources. Fact – Municipal recycling programs waste resources, evidenced by the need to subsidize them.
Myth Eight – Without forced recycling mandates, there wouldn’t be recycling. Fact – When the price is right, the private sector recycles, a phenomenon that Benjamin points out is “as old as trash itself.”
Regarding myths seven and eight, Benjamin concludes: “Such programs force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard. On balance, mandatory recycling programs lower our wealth.” When a government subsidizes a recycling program, the program, no matter who is running it, is forced upon all taxpayers, whether they want to participate or not.
It will cost the City of St. Marys $18.00 per ton to dispose of refuse in 2004 but would cost $50.00 per ton to get a recycler to accept it – the transportation costs are about equal. (That you have to pay a person to take “recyclable” material, rather than being paid for it, tells you immediately the value of the effort.) It was estimated by the refuse department head that about 20 tons of recyclable material are collected in the recycling trailer each year. The disposal cost: $360.00, the recycling cost: $1,000.00. With the recycling committee’s subsidy request given as $1,100.00 at a recent city commission meeting, this would amount to the city wasting $740.00 worth of tax dollars. A possible option? The city could pay the recycling committee $18.00 per ton of material hauled off in the recycling trailer. And if the recycling committee asks the city to operate the recycling trailer? Reduce the per ton payment as necessary to cover the direct costs to the city’s tax payers of watching over the privately operated recycling trailer.
Micky, scrap exports, which you diod not adress at all, are a big business. It’s good for trade, it’s good for the preservation of global resources, and it is a profitable business for all involved. What an ostensible capitailist would have against any of that is completely beyond me. We should be shipping more of it, we should be encouraging more scrap trade. Domestic recycling can be expensive, messy, and unprofitable, as you said. Trading that scrap could be quite profitable with the right scale and margin. Overall though, it’s certainly better than just piling it up on the ground. That’s just stupid.
“Micky, scrap exports, which you diod not adress at all, ”
yes I did
Trade in trash raises our nation’s wealth by as much as $4 billion; most of the benefit accrues to citizens of areas that import trash.
An import is any good or commodity, brought into one country from another country .
Soon carbon credits will be big business too. That does not make it honest or wothwhile for any of those other than the Gores at the top of the food chain.
“Trade in trash raises our nation’s wealth by as much as $4 billion; most of the benefit accrues to citizens of areas that import trash.
An import is any good or commodity, brought into one country from another country .”
Micky, I just wrote that I worked in trade for ten years. I really don’t need the definition of “import.” However, if we ever meet, I could give you a fifteen hour discourse on trade, if you like.
The benefit of scrap trade, Micky, is dynamically mutual: We buy product, we make waste, we ship waste back to product maker who then makes another product, we buy product, we make waste, etc. What you’re suggesting is some stick in the gear that isn’t there. We gain from getting rid of waste and from cheaper goods and from less global resource depletion. Where exactly do you see a problem with any of that? I mean, you could argue against free trade, say, by asserting that we should do the cycle domestically, but other than that, what exactly is your problem with recycling?
“landfill capacity is increasing”
Insanity. You think it’s good to have more dumps, huh? Insanity. Where’s your entrepeneurial spirit??? Ya’ know, many a great American made some great money from the realization that one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. Here again you remind me why I’m not a “conservative,” because there doesn’t seem to be anything conservative about it.
“The benefit of scrap trade, Micky, is dynamically mutual”
One mans trash is another mans treasure, I get it. But it does practically nothing for the environment and almost nothing for our economy. The countries you ship your garbage (scrap) to gets the majority of the benefit, not America.
“We gain from getting rid of waste and from cheaper goods ”
It is not cheaper.
It will cost the City of St. Marys $18.00 per ton to dispose of refuse in 2004 but would cost $50.00 per ton to get a recycler to accept it – the transportation costs are about equal. (That you have to pay a person to take “recyclable” material, rather than being paid for it, tells you immediately the value of the effort.) It was estimated by the refuse department head that about 20 tons of recyclable material are collected in the recycling trailer each year. The disposal cost: $360.00, the recycling cost: $1,000.00. With the recycling committee’s subsidy request given as $1,100.00 at a recent city commission meeting, this would amount to the city wasting $740.00 worth of tax dollars. A possible option? The city could pay the recycling committee $18.00 per ton of material hauled off in the recycling trailer. And if the recycling committee asks the city to operate the recycling trailer? Reduce the per ton payment as necessary to cover the direct costs to the city’s tax payers of watching over the privately operated recycling trailer. ‘
If you are not going to read the facts I present and stick your blind arguement forget it.
Everything you are argueing has been addressed already.
Most recycling is like when your blanket is too short. You cut off the bottom and sew it to the top.
” I could give you a fifteen hour discourse on trade, if you like.”
So could Courtney Love. but no thanks. You hauled garbage around on a container ship, big deal.
“what exactly is your problem with recycling? ”
I pay a 6 cent deposit on each can or bottle I purchase. I only get a nickel back.
Where does that penny go ? Is my next aluminum product going to be cheaper in relation the going rate of aluminum commodities ?
Not hardly !
Does that penny go to help the environment ? NO !
Does the recycling and refabrication of that aluminum help cost or the environmement ?
As a matter af fact the whole process is filthier and more costly than just mining the product to start with.
Well, Micky, we’re going to just have to agree to disagree. Nothing I say to you about how to make a positive out of a negative appeals to you. You deny that recycling is preferable to depletion of natural resources, you deny the broader implications of worldwide pollution, you don’t care whether or not something is profitable enough just because you don’t like the margin,… I can’t argue with all that. If that’s how you really feel, then fine. I completely disagree, and to be honest, think it’s a narrow-minded, short-sighted, typically-hyphenated “conservative” position.
Read my post again! The next sentence laid out his “not an amnesty lie.” His comprehensive immigration bill. The one he and Kennedy tried to sneak past while no one was looking. The one that set off enough protests to crash the phone system in the senate office building.
“You deny that recycling is preferable to depletion of natural resources, ”
“It’s worth it just for that, let alone the savings on limited natural resources.”
Once again, my research comes from professionals in the field, and you still failed once again to retain the knowledge.
Myth Five – We squander irreplaceable resources when we don’t recycle. Fact – Price controls the use of resources. Resources are used but remain available; human ingenuity is the reason.
JMJ;”you don’t care whether or not something is profitable enough just because you don’t like the margin,… ‘
I never said any such thing , my point from the beggining was made by the doctor anaology.Which was to please dont make me do something out of fake fear.
“If theres a ton of money to be made in the green sector , so be it . But dont try to scare me into any initiatives or overblown get quick rich scams at the cost of my familys future.
Do we understand each other now ?
Here in Oregon, the capital of recycling and “sustainability” we have had a bottle and can deposit program since before anybody else. You pay when you buy, and when you bring back, you get a refund. IF you bring back to the right store. IF the can isn’t dented. IF the machine isn’t broken that day (week.) IF it isn’t too much trouble when you can just toss it in the recycling container on garbage day. The city operates the recycling truck in addition to the compacter truck. You pay again. The only ones making out are the homeless. They travel the garbage route and pick thru the containers. Not too many of them throw what they don’t want on the streets.
If recycling is all that wonderfu, and saving all that much why is more expensive to buy the stuff with recycled content? Even the utilities get in the act. Now you can have your electricity supplied from “renewal” sources. Of course it costs more, and I can’t for the life of me see how one electron differs from another. The most laughable thing about it that most of our electricity here is from hydroelectric plants. How much more renewable can it get already? Until the green fanatics can get the dams pulled down. For the fish. And can you imagine the devastation that will leave in its wake?
Charly, get real. The McCain immigration approach was not “amnesty.” It was a pain the glutes. That’s why it didn’t past. The cheap labor cons couldn’t get it together with the anti-immigration crowd and the Dems to make a “copmprehensive” bill that could get passed and signed. It wasn’t amnesty so much as labor guarentees for the cheap labor cons and their sympathizers on both sides of the aisle.
As for what you buy that is recycled, you don’t have a clue. Much of the plastic, paper and metal that is all around you was recycled in China et al and made into what you have today.
You guys just don’t understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.
“You guys just don’t understand these issues beyond a very base and simplistic level.’
Oh ! And you do ? So you mention China ? So much for quality control huh ?
You understand it so well, yet you cant explain away our counter arguements.
Which can only mean that you are wrong.
The bottom line is this.
It does very little for the environment or the economy .
It brings 4 billion a year into Americas economy. Thats chump change jersey.
As you say , much of our plastic paper and metal is recycled only because people have been shammed into believing it somehow helps.
To recycle is one thing. To make us pay for doing it is wrong . Seeing as how the process is actually making money for companies like the one you worked for and other countries (like china), and its benefit for the environment has not been proven very limited, the average American is spending more under false pretences.
If it is so beneficial to the market why must I lose 17.5% of my investment every time I buy a soda ?
Try again. His fiscal bona fides hardly make him a conservative. This is what I mean by changing definitions. There’s much more to being conservative than being against deficits. As for his limited government positions, don’t make me laugh. He’s for whatever government he needs to further his agenda. What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?
Also, you might want to pick up a copy of The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. It’s the most complete description of conservatism in existence. And not because Kirk comes up with a really neat sounding definition, but because he shows what conservativism means through the great minds of the movement going all the way back to Edmund Burke.
“What was limited and conservative about McCain-Feingold?”
A Boston Globe editor was asked about that the other day on C-Span after her conservative paper had endorsed McCain. She said, and I paraphrase, as for McCain-Fiengold, I don’t see anything conservative about supporting corruption. She thought McCain-Fiengold was good, conservative, legislation. Do you think the old soft money system was good? How about the second party soft money? How about disclosure? Other than just following Rush Limbaugh, whom I assume is like Jesus to you, what exactly is your problem with McCain-Feingold?
I’m familiar with The Conservative Mind. In it’s assertions that morality is law, static is change, disgression is bad, etc, it seems clear that it was written by an unhappy reactionary. Whatever. McCain may not be that conservative. But to call him a “liberal” is just childish.
You didn’t read The Conservative Mind. Russell Kirk was anything but unhappy. Read it. You’ll learn something.
As for McCain-Feingold, I could care less what a Boston Globe editor has to say about it, for one. For another, it limits political speech-the very point of the free speech clause of the first amendment. There’s nothing conservative about limiting political speech. Nothing.
No, I didn’t read his silly tome. I know about it from interviews and reveiws and discussions. His premise that conservatism is the dynamic driving force of progress through modern history is both laughable and a lie.
Okay, Chris, how does McCain-Feingold limit free speech? Put your money where your Rush Limbaugh fandom is.
Don’t talk about The Conservative Mind like you know anything about it if you haven’t read it. You don’t see me critiquing your Dr. Seuss books.
McCain-Feingold prevents certain people from speaking out during elections. These people might be people you don’t like, but that’s the whole idea of protecting free speech. As long as the 1st Amendment continues to allow pornography to be made and for NAMBLA to publish its ideas, liberals have no problem. But we can’t have issue groups speaking their minds about candidates or issues.
I suppose you also agree with limiting the speech of pastors in churches. And I’m sure you’ll deny that it’s a limit on free speech if all they lose is their tax exemption, but then you’ve violated separation of Church and state. So, you just can’t win.