My crap -- not your crap. It might be political, social, or personal. If you don't like it, leave. Comment if you want. I might reply or I might not, but I do read them.
If there actually were any honest Republicans like the one in this comic, I'd at least have a grudging respect for him/her. But it's so much easier to hide behind bullshit like "you can't raise taxes on the job creators" and "environmental regulations are destroying jobs."With so many dumbasses who keep falling for these phony slogans, why should the GOP change to a different tactic?
The closest they come is probably Buffett's stance on taxes.
That comic just about sums it up on a very hypocrital breed.
That is a GREAT comic..and so damn true..its scary!THanks for sharing dude. ;-)
I'm old enough to remember that Newsweek cover on the coming of the second ice age. Just call me a global-warming agnostic.
Like Tom said.Will, it doesn't take an M.D. to know that if someone drinks a fifth of whiskey and six pack of beer a day, that someone is going to suffer irreversible physical and mental damage before long, and die much sooner than he or she would have without the alcohol. Common sense makes clear the body can't cope with that much alcohol.It doesn't take a Ph.D. in any scientific discipline to realize that longterm, large-scale and ever increasing pumping of CO2 and other byproducts of combustion into Earth's atmosphere has a cumulative effect; that at some point, the atmosphere's ability to cleanse and restore itself will be overcome and that serious, irreversible damage will occur. Common sense is all that's needed to realize that large-scale, serious changes will then take place in many aspects of our environment that we've more or less taken for granted.All that is true in addition to the fact that historically there have been some shifts in average temperatures.And then there is this bit of common sense. If we act to substantially reduce release of CO2 and other byproducts of combustion into the atmosphere — whether or not global warming is taking place and will have serious negative consequences — we will have taken steps to conserve finite resources and end our dependence on foreign oil sources while enhancing the health prospects of people and other living things worldwide.Those arrayed against dealing with the damage being done to Earth's atmosphere are the politicized ignorant and the successfully selfish, like "Honest Man" in the cartoon panel.
Those arrayed against dealing with the damage being done to Earth's atmosphere are the politicized ignorant and the successfully selfish, like "Honest Man" in the cartoon panel. Fantastic response in a nutshell! Can I use that quote in the future, with proper attribution of course?
Sure, Dusty; I'm honored.
I suspect that there probably is some warming of the planet. But I still don't know how ANYBODY can ascertain with certitude that the cause of it is man-made. The earth is some 6 billion years old. There have no doubt been thousands of previous episodes of global warming; 99.9% prior to man's evolution. Add to that the fact that 95-99% of greenhouse gasses (depending upon whether you include water vapor) are NON man-made and you really do have to wonder. If your overall point is that we should pollute less, yeah, that I could buy into. But if we're going to end up spending trillions and only reduce the temperature by a couple of tenths of a percent then, no.
Will, consider the possibility where a natural phenomenon that occurs once in a millennium, say, runs up the temperature significantly. On its own, this change would cause serious dislocations and cost many people the world over in ways large and small.Now, consider that eventuality happening more rapidly and to a much greater extent because on top of the natural cause you have so much man-made pollution as an aggravating factor.Denying the role of man-made pollution or shifting full responsibility to a rare natural event is as sensible and helpful as a kid whining, "But he started it."Note that I'm not saying you are doing either of those things. Unfortunately, most on the right are doing both.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased significantly since the industrial revolution -- I think something like 30%. If this were not having a dramatic effect on the climate, then that lack of effect would itself be a great mystery that needed explaining.To observe this increase and then look for a non-anthropogenic cause for climate change is like stomping on the gas pedal of your car and then trying to find some other reason (than having stomped on the gas pedal) for why the car suddenly moved forward.
These are correlations, Infidel. You cannot draw causal relationships from correlational analysis. There could be a whole multitude of intervening variables at work here (some perhaps even beyond our cognizance) which are producing said effect. And I also have to ask the hard-core environmentalists, if we don't run our cars on oil, and we don't run our cars on ethanol, and we don't run our cars on natural gas, what, prey tell, DO we run them on? Electric cars? They need coal (environmentalists being against nuclear, too)! And what about all of the products that we currently produce that are petroleum based - what about them? This is a complicated situation and I don't think that the conservatives are the only people who haven't thought the matter through.
SW - dude, I'm doing my part. I'm a vegetarian who drives an economy car, turns the thermostat down as far as humanly possible, and recycles literally everything. The rest of my esteemed colleagues here, I cannot speak for them.
Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are honest in the sense that neither of them tries to hide their stupidity through silence. And you all thought I couldn't say something nice about a republican.
The truth does not lie.
Will wrote: "There could be a whole multitude of intervening variables at work here. . ."Sure there could, and those who demand absolute proof might only get it once severe damage has been done at great worldwide cost. That's where the need to use common sense, as I wrote about above, comes in. Common sense that you can't dump billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere yearly without working changes. Common sense that it's better to err on the side of safety.Sounds as though you're doing what you can to not aggravate the problem. I salute you for that.
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com