From the Bloomberg News.
Again, how surprising.The Bush administration violated U.S. law by failing to produce a study on the impact of global warming and must issue a summary by March, a federal judge ruled.
District Judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland, California, said the U.S. government "unlawfully withheld action'' required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to update a research plan and scientific assessment of climate change.
14 comments:
Well there you go. One left wing judge says it and that makes it so. Global warming is all the fault of the Bush admin. After all a lefty judge ruled it.
Dayvoe,
eepKay itway upway ithway eethay obalglay armingway uffstay. Itsway ivingdray eethay ingnutsway azycray.
; )
Yes, those, lefty judges. To you and Ruth Ann Dailey, check wiki, err.. conservapedia or something. Even the most left of statements by John Edwards would be somewhere to the right of the conservative hero Margaret Thatcher. There are no 'lefties' with any power. No Dem is calling for socialism, (save independent Bernie Sanders, and maybe Chris Potter) much less anything left of that. So because the entire world wants to do something about global warming doesn't make them 'lefties', comrade. Now, for assignment #2, google fascism (which is on extreme right) and compare that to this administration's actions and beliefs. Of course, you won't do this, and we'll go around in circles again. Damn Liberals!
Couldn't help myself; Like the limp wristed Liberal, I have done your home work for you.
Def. fascim
Comparison to current regime
Interesting link. The only thing agreed upon there is that nobody agrees upon what is fascism. One quote:
"Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
"1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[7]"
Hmmm. Is that present-day conservatism? "a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions". Sounds like the man-made global warming drive. You know, the sky-is-falling-crowd.
"belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits." Uh-oh, this looks like liberalism's holy grail - victimhood. You know, the one where everyone has an identity and a claim against "the man" - the hyphenated crowd: African-American, gay-American, etc.
"need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts." Well, that could go a lot of ways. Maybe, just maybe, I could tie Clinton and his followers: "It was just a blowjob! WHO CARES he lied under oath! He's going to save us!"
"right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint." Kinda like the Green kooks who advocate taking a man's property to save the snail darter. After all, they're just smarter than the average person in the long run, and must save the earth from evil property owners.
You see, children, the moral here is that you cannot blindly throw out the fascism monacher without truly understanding that there is no concensus about what it means, and that it could be twisted to fit any ideology.
The best part, xranger, is that you amalgamated several different, oftentimes dissimilar factions into one group...and then left out the bit about foreign contamination altogether.
I don't happen to fit many--if any--of your groups, and I'm further to the left than most of the people you love to hate.
1. Global warming can be helped by traditional means of conservation and something you conservatives like to think you have a monopoly on: common sense. The sky isn't falling yet, and there are other, larger things that need fixing as well that tie in well to this particular problem, so it's win-win anyway.
2. I guess that depends on your definition of "the man", doesn't it? Personally, as long as you have an upper crust controlling the vast majority of the country's wealth, there will be victims galore. Victims in this case being people who have no real control over their fortunes.
3. Bill Clinton? Please. He was a conservative like all other prominent politicians (see Jim's comments), and he broke the law in lying to a grand jury. The people who defend him constantly are Clinton fanboys/girls, not leftists.
4. How are environmental radicals any real part of the Left? Most of us socialists have no designs whatsoever on taking people's real property away.
5. Again, funny you didn't mention foreign contamination. Gotta watch out for those Mexicans, don'tcha?
I would say that only those of you on the far left do not consider famille Clinton liberal.
Everyone else does.
Finally, read my last paragraph above. I was attempting to make the point that you cannot easily call conservatives fascist, as an earlier writer was inferring.
XRanger, in sincerity, it is refreshing that you began a debate around this instead of a more knee-jerk response. I happen to believe that some of the points you make are a stretch (such as Bush being a conservative, instead of a neo-con), and that while this administration certainly isn't fascist, it displays those tendencies sometimes and it would be a lot harder to honestly characterize any previous admin (D or R) as fitting into that characterization as much as the current one. My main point still stands, there is no far left in the country by pure definition or volume, while the far right seems to have a decent hold on a lot of power and some republican voters. I assume when Hillary is president, and starts doing all of the nonsense G.W. does, you will be pissed. The point is, so will we.
I am saddened to read this post, X. I would not have predicted that you would take a stance on global warming that is extreme even in contrast to the Bush Administration.
And your statment about libs being professional victims would be amusing if it weren't so scary. Bill O'Reilly's shrieking about the ACLU trying to steal Christmas puts paid to that ludicrous idea. And that's before we even get to the paranoia coming from the Savages, the Coulters, and the Limbaughs.
Are you sure you want to talk about lies coming out of the White House? Clinton stood trial for his indiscretions. He was acquitted by the Senate on both counts.
It's no wonder that someone in your position sees Hillary as a liberal. I'm sure you feel the same way about Grover Norquist.
BTW, the word is "moniker."
"I would say that only those of you on the far left do not consider famille Clinton liberal.
Everyone else does."
No, everyone else does not. People in this country do because, well, let's face it, we're just not familiar with politics outside our own borders. That Bill and Hillary pass as leftists here just goes to show our own insular provincialism. They'd be right-wingers in any other industrialized country on Earth. Why? Because I'd wager we're the most conservative Republic there is--certainly the most conservative industrialized nation in the world, by far.
Let's take Bill, since Hillary hasn't been Commander-in-Chief:
1. NAFTA. What leftist would enter the country into a treaty that was so obviously bad for labor in this country?
2. DoMA. Defense of Marriage Act in case you're not up on the lingo. Quarantining same-sex marriage to individual states that might allow it, contravening the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to a leftist, absolutely unthinkable. And the bill was introduced by a Senator who is a Libertarian now that he's not in office anymore. Go figure.
3. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. How stupid. He took what was already a discriminatory policy, gave it a catchy name, and called it a landmark achievement for gays and lesbians everywhere.
4. Welfare "reform". If you've never tried to get yourself financial help, you really don't have any idea how difficult it is now. Even for people who are trying to balance a couple part time jobs and school at the same time, it's far from a guarantee that they'll qualify for anything, let alone be able to keep it for long, thanks to this.
All of these things are distinguishing pieces of legislation for Mr. Clinton. None of them are even remotely centrist, let alone leftist.
Where's your evidence?
Pretty good posts, here. Glad to see I got more people in the debate. See, John, the new and improved X.
Anyway, Justin, you are correct on all counts. When Clinton was president, I mistrusted that bastard, just waiting for him to screw up a good economy. Never happened.
After the smoke clears and the 90's fade into memory, and couple that with Bush fatigue (no, he is not a conservative; yes, he is a neo-con) I pause to wonder why the hell I hated slick Willy so much.
I guess it was because, with the end of 12 years of Republican rule, and with a 60's anti-war liberal, for crissakes, coming into office, I expected the worse. His first 2 do-nothing years, with a total Dem Congress, almost got us HillaryCare at the worst, and a stagnant economy at the best. Confirmed all my fears. (Also proved to me that one party rule, by either party, is bad for America).
Finally, I'll clarify my global-warming position for John: the earth may or may not be warming, and I do not believe mankind can do anything to create this phenomenon. I think the global-warming movement is the modern-day socialist movement, attempting to further government control over what countries can and cannot manufacture, or operate. When communism ended, a new global alliance for the far-left was required, and radical environmentalism fit the bill.
Having said that, I'm all for reducing pollution. Who isn't. Just keep the Kyoto-style accords out of it.
I do not believe mankind can do anything to create this phenomenon.
Well, the VAST majority of scientists in the field disagree. I hope this will not reverse our rediscovered amity, X, but I think I'll go with their scientific findings rather than something you believe. (Don't get me started on beliefs!)
When communism ended, a new global alliance for the far-left was required, and radical environmentalism fit the bill.
Uh-oh, this looks like conservatism's holy grail - paranoia.
I pause to wonder why the hell I hated slick Willy so much.
Here I agree. There is no reason for a conservative to dislike Slick Willy, nor his wife.
xranger, thanks for the kind words.
The only thing I have left as a beef is that without Kyoto-style accords, corporations have no incentive to change their polluting ways.
I live very close to one of the worst polluters in the country. They essentially separate metals for reclamation and, yes, recycling. What they do works for them. Why change if they don't have to?
Post a Comment