You touch on good reasons to not vote for McCain. Let me add that if McCain is in, the Republicans in Congress will roll over for his every request - increased taxes, Amnesty, environmental etc. We are assured of sheep Republican Congress with McCain.
However, at least with Hillary or Obama, a few Republican Congress persons might finally find their voice and start to stand up again for principles.
nonein2008 - 09:05pm on 05/10/2008
However, at least with Hillary or Obama, a few Republican Congress persons might finally find their voice and start to stand up again for principles.
First of all, there are already Republican representatives who stand for conservative principles and a couple of them are from Texas (Ken Marchant my representative and senator John Cornyn). Secondly have you considered how ineffectual these Republoan representatives will be if the Democratics controlled both the presidency and the congress.
Sure we can give the government and the nation to the Democrats for the next 4 years but there may not be much to resurrect after they get through with it.
docdave - 10:05pm on 05/10/2008
I’m going to have to disagree with y’all on this one. While I agree that much of the rhetoric on global warming is highly inflamed, I think that statement goes both ways.
Humans are changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, and that change inevitably will have an effect on climate. That’s “just physics”.
McCain says he has “sponsored legislation to find free market solutions to the problem”. If one agrees that a problem exists (maybe not the magnitude that some claim), is there a better approach than this?
Carrick - 09:05am on 05/11/2008
Diverting resources to “solve” a non-existent “problem” is simply a waste. If you’re talking about more efficient means of productivity, the market takes care of that, when not burdened by taxation and regulation designed to enrich the political class at the expense of the rest of the population.
So far, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only significant when you express it in terms of percentage of increase. If you express it in parts per million, for instance, it isn’t significant. I think the Sun is the real causative factor in world climate, and we can’t “do” anything about that.
When technology is relatively unrestricted, it tends to make better things that use less energy to do the job. It has gotten us from living in caves to having personal computers.
robert108 - 09:05am on 05/11/2008
docdave”
Sure we can give the government and the nation to the democrats for the next 4 years but there may not be much to resurrect after they get through with it.
Thank you! Thank you! A voice of sanity!
The absurd theory that, “If we give the WH to a dem, people will wake up in four years and we won’t be blamed”, is total crap.
In 48 months, armed with a bloated majority in Congress, Barack Obama will liberalize the Supreme Court for the next 20 years or more and then pass new ‘redistricting’ legislation, turn our backs on the War on Terror, snuggle up to Middle East dictators, install a new, tougher “Fairness Doctine”, reinstitute affirmative action, mandate the whole global warming scam, create an unprecedented immigration open-door policy and raise taxes to record levels to pay for it all.
I am utterly astonished when otherwise smart folks at SAB say, “Ah, let them win. McCain is just a RINO”. Really? Just watch how the libs go after him in the Fall!
pparets - 09:05am on 05/11/2008
Robert108:
Diverting resources to “solve” a non-existent “problem” is simply a waste
The impact of humans on their climate, not limited to the influence of anthropenic gas emisisons, is not a “non-problem”.
So far, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only significant when you express it in terms of percentage of increase. If you express it in parts per million, for instance, it isn’t significant.
If you measure it in terms of the classic greenhouse gas effect associated e.g. with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, it is a real and significant effect. Expressing it in ppm isn’t the appropriate measure here.
When technology is relatively unrestricted, it tends to make better things that use less energy to do the job. It has gotten us from living in caves to having personal computers.
Which comes back to a long-standing disagreement between us.
If I have understood your position correctly, you suggest that the free market without government intervention can optimize both for the maximum short term as well as long term benefit.
I suggest that both are not always possible, and further that publicly owned corporations (e.g., those with public shares, not those owned by the government) only optimize for the short-term (e.g., five years into the future), which often is at odds to their longer term interests. This explains the necessity of government involvement in education, R&D and other infrastructural issues. This also includes government involvement in safety related issues, such as automobile seat belts and air bags.
I’m not suggesting restricting the market, neither is John McCain (so far as I can tell). However, government investment in technologies that reduce our CO2 footprint (until such time as we may decide we need to increase it) is an intelligent choice here, and will inevitably lead to free market choices that further reduce our CO2 emissions.
I can argue that this is working because the United States has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions via this interaction between government sponsored R&D and our free market system, as opposed to the socialistic approach taken by Europe, where CO2 emissions continue to increase.
Carrick - 09:05am on 05/11/2008
If I have understood your position correctly, you suggest that the free market without government intervention can optimize both for the maximum short term as well as long term benefit.
It’s not my position, it’s yours, which biases the argument in your favor. You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply nonsense. As I have repeated over and over, without short term profitability, there is no long term.
However, that’s the wrong argument, IMO. The govt does even worse, in that it ignores short term econmics entirely, and it’s redistribution tactic creates long term problems, as in the ethanol debacle, for one example.
It is also inaccurate to state my position as a “totally free market without govt intervention”. I have also dealt with this with you multiple times, and will state it once again: “Free market” means freedom of entry and exit, not “freedom from all regulation”. You misstate the point entirely. Obviously, minimal regulation(that doesn’t interfere with market forces) is not only necessary, but desirable. Enforcement of contracts and a responsive money supply come to mind.
Trying to force the market to obey some misguided concept like “CO2 footprint” is not only wrong, but completely unnecessary.
The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century, and 3/4 of that has vanished in one year. It’s not a problem, and projecting that a problem might exist at some time in the future is a piss-poor reason to monkey with totalitarian socialism, IMO.
Your “greenhouse effect” ain’t workin’, dude.
robert108 - 10:05am on 05/11/2008
The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century,
Actually that’s worst case, Since world CO2 emissions were pretty negligible prior to World War 2. Also we were coming out of the Little Ice Age.
But I think you’re point that even taking the most extreme position the effect is pretty small. (Not that I buy it.)
The Whistler - 10:05am on 05/11/2008
McCain says he has “sponsored legislation to find free market solutions to the problem”. If one agrees that a problem exists (maybe not the magnitude that some claim), is there a better approach than this?
Well for one thing the European “Cap and Trade” scheme he proposed is actually do worse than the US free market.
You touch on good reasons to not vote for McCain. Let me add that if McCain is in, the Republicans in Congress will roll over for his every request - increased taxes, Amnesty, environmental etc. We are assured of sheep Republican Congress with McCain.
However, at least with Hillary or Obama, a few Republican Congress persons might finally find their voice and start to stand up again for principles.
First of all, there are already Republican representatives who stand for conservative principles and a couple of them are from Texas (Ken Marchant my representative and senator John Cornyn). Secondly have you considered how ineffectual these Republoan representatives will be if the Democratics controlled both the presidency and the congress.
Sure we can give the government and the nation to the Democrats for the next 4 years but there may not be much to resurrect after they get through with it.
I’m going to have to disagree with y’all on this one. While I agree that much of the rhetoric on global warming is highly inflamed, I think that statement goes both ways.
Humans are changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, and that change inevitably will have an effect on climate. That’s “just physics”.
McCain says he has “sponsored legislation to find free market solutions to the problem”. If one agrees that a problem exists (maybe not the magnitude that some claim), is there a better approach than this?
Diverting resources to “solve” a non-existent “problem” is simply a waste. If you’re talking about more efficient means of productivity, the market takes care of that, when not burdened by taxation and regulation designed to enrich the political class at the expense of the rest of the population.
So far, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only significant when you express it in terms of percentage of increase. If you express it in parts per million, for instance, it isn’t significant. I think the Sun is the real causative factor in world climate, and we can’t “do” anything about that.
When technology is relatively unrestricted, it tends to make better things that use less energy to do the job. It has gotten us from living in caves to having personal computers.
docdave”
Thank you! Thank you! A voice of sanity!
The absurd theory that, “If we give the WH to a dem, people will wake up in four years and we won’t be blamed”, is total crap.
In 48 months, armed with a bloated majority in Congress, Barack Obama will liberalize the Supreme Court for the next 20 years or more and then pass new ‘redistricting’ legislation, turn our backs on the War on Terror, snuggle up to Middle East dictators, install a new, tougher “Fairness Doctine”, reinstitute affirmative action, mandate the whole global warming scam, create an unprecedented immigration open-door policy and raise taxes to record levels to pay for it all.
I am utterly astonished when otherwise smart folks at SAB say, “Ah, let them win. McCain is just a RINO”. Really? Just watch how the libs go after him in the Fall!
Robert108:
The impact of humans on their climate, not limited to the influence of anthropenic gas emisisons, is not a “non-problem”.
If you measure it in terms of the classic greenhouse gas effect associated e.g. with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, it is a real and significant effect. Expressing it in ppm isn’t the appropriate measure here.
Which comes back to a long-standing disagreement between us.
If I have understood your position correctly, you suggest that the free market without government intervention can optimize both for the maximum short term as well as long term benefit.
I suggest that both are not always possible, and further that publicly owned corporations (e.g., those with public shares, not those owned by the government) only optimize for the short-term (e.g., five years into the future), which often is at odds to their longer term interests. This explains the necessity of government involvement in education, R&D and other infrastructural issues. This also includes government involvement in safety related issues, such as automobile seat belts and air bags.
I’m not suggesting restricting the market, neither is John McCain (so far as I can tell). However, government investment in technologies that reduce our CO2 footprint (until such time as we may decide we need to increase it) is an intelligent choice here, and will inevitably lead to free market choices that further reduce our CO2 emissions.
I can argue that this is working because the United States has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions via this interaction between government sponsored R&D and our free market system, as opposed to the socialistic approach taken by Europe, where CO2 emissions continue to increase.
It’s not my position, it’s yours, which biases the argument in your favor. You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply nonsense. As I have repeated over and over, without short term profitability, there is no long term.
However, that’s the wrong argument, IMO. The govt does even worse, in that it ignores short term econmics entirely, and it’s redistribution tactic creates long term problems, as in the ethanol debacle, for one example.
It is also inaccurate to state my position as a “totally free market without govt intervention”. I have also dealt with this with you multiple times, and will state it once again: “Free market” means freedom of entry and exit, not “freedom from all regulation”. You misstate the point entirely. Obviously, minimal regulation(that doesn’t interfere with market forces) is not only necessary, but desirable. Enforcement of contracts and a responsive money supply come to mind.
Trying to force the market to obey some misguided concept like “CO2 footprint” is not only wrong, but completely unnecessary.
The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century, and 3/4 of that has vanished in one year. It’s not a problem, and projecting that a problem might exist at some time in the future is a piss-poor reason to monkey with totalitarian socialism, IMO.
Your “greenhouse effect” ain’t workin’, dude.
Actually that’s worst case, Since world CO2 emissions were pretty negligible prior to World War 2. Also we were coming out of the Little Ice Age.
But I think you’re point that even taking the most extreme position the effect is pretty small. (Not that I buy it.)
Well for one thing the European “Cap and Trade” scheme he proposed is actually do worse than the US free market.
What do you make of that?
But frankly since he’s using the same rhetoric as Algore there’s something to be feared here.
Isn’t it a bit of an oxymoron to speak of “legislation to find free market solutions”?
We doan need no steenking legislation!