Why Are The Democrats So Scared? You Would Be Too

Remove all ads!

Have a look at China. A bristling economic growth - and their environment is paying a horrid price for it. Shortsightedness that is turning them into the planet's manufactory - for now, and will cripple them some time soon, as there will be a reckoning.

Put the cost of China's consumption of their natural resources against their economic growth and they wont look so impressive anymore. Costs that are included into the calculations by other economic powers, who spare nature at least some devastation, rather heeding the future expense of a ruined environment, by implementing certain production methods.

One would expect an ancient people such as the Chinese to have a more sensible perspective on time. But... no.

 

Coal isnt really a sustainable kind of industry so it sucks for the individuals in question but in the greater scheme it is a good thing.

 

It's tghe economy that plays into the minds of the voters. How many voters are going to elect a party that will save the environment but tank the economy in the process? Voters will want their jobs, and if that's taken away, then the voters have bigger, more immediate problems.

Any solution must start immediately, but has to keep the people happy too. Otherwise, there will be no change...

 

This isn't really what the choice is, first of all. It isn't an example of "environmental protection vs my job". Yes, yes, occasionally companies will choose to close their doors when it isn't deemed "profitable enough" to meet new environmental standards but, by and large, this isn't going to be the case. If environmental regulations raise the cost of a good or service, more often then not the business in question will just raise it's price. Even if it were a "my job vs the future of our envioronment" type of issue, I don't think your comparison is true of all voters....or even of most voters. I, for one, do not want prosperity at the cost of my children's future. I, and probably most parents, would prefer being destitute over destroying the future of my children's children.

 

First off, there is no real difference between democrats and republicans these days. But I'll pretend for the sake of argument. If the left has no influence over current policy then why aren't we kicking all the illegals out of the country?

Oh, yea. Firebombing a bunch of innocent American women and children isn't deserving of impeachment.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

I would say he is refering to a little place called Waco,Texas.

 

Last I checked, it was Janet Reno who did that. And no one was supposed to die. You don't impeach (charge criminally) someone for an accident. When Bush lied to the world to start a war in Iraq, he did it on purpose.

 

Waco was no accident and Clinton was the Boss.

 

Clinton did not order the FBI to set fire to the compound (most died in the fire....not from gunfire). Neither did Reno. The fire was an accident. The ATF, who clearly screwed up in their initial raid, were under Reno's jurisdiction, as were the FBI agents who took over after the ATF screwed up. Reno was also following reccomendations from FBI officials throughout the siege.....she wasn't taking her orders or her info from Clinton. It further bears repeating that neither Clinton nor Reno ordered that the compound be burned down. Not even the republicans at the time blamed this one on Clinton. They blamed Reno.

 

When you force flamable gas in to a wood structure and then start a fire fight it is not an accident. And Bill Clinton was the the president not Janet Reno, he was the boss, he could have straightend out this fiasco anytime he wanted. Just as George bush could have avoided the Ruby Ridge murders, He was the boss. You don't go throw gas on a bunch of flaming nutjobs on thier own turf. Thats how these things go wrong, over zealous government lawenforcement setting out to teach these damn extreamist a leason. But if you wish to discuss these matters please start a thread and we shall see where it leads .

 

Someone under the president's authority messed up. To put this as bluntly as possible, there is no possible way that the president can oversee absolutely every single thing that happens in his country. He delegated the authority, those to whom he delegated it messed up, and people died. While I will not disagree with the assertion that Clinton was accountable for mistakes made by those beneath him, it is important to point out that there was no way Clinton would have known that the FBI would be stupid enough to use incendiary devices during a firefight in which many innocent lives were at stake. Clinton may have made a mistake in delegating authority in this instance (debatable) but he did nothing criminal.

 

I just had to post when I read that. I mean - seriously - what the ****?! How can anyone speak, hear or read that sentence without noticing the ridiculous contradiction? Why would environmentalists' goals be "to stop economic development"? Who would gain by doing that? Not them, they'd get the blame from people like this. Not the people at the bottom of America's social ladder - there'd be less jobs to go around, and they're the people lefties love, aren't they? Not even top corporate folks'd be better off (although I'm sure they'd manage to survive).

Ultimately, though, the biggest contradiction is in the notion that acting to protect our environment somehow implies that we're inflicting suffering on ourselves - really, we're not. Suffering would come from ignoring the issue until the planet is incapable of supporting our lifestyle, that's the real stop to economic development, right there. Keep raping the planet until there's no more left to take and we all lose. Environmentalism is a long-term view, that allows sustainable development. Our current practices do not.

 

With this I agree. If you take the partisan fervor out of things they go a lot smoother.

 

You know, Bassil, you ascribe partisan fervor to all sorts of issues where there simply isn't any to be found. Things will also go more smoothly when you take my words at face value instead of labeling them as "leftist" and blowing them out of proportion. I readily admit to being liberal, but I was once a conservative and still am in many areas (for example, I am not pro-choice). It took me years before I woke up and realized that I had ceased being conservative and was, in fact, a liberal. It happened slowly as I learned more about the world around me, and my opinions on politics, economics, taxation, and human rights had all changed so gradually that I was a liberal in nearly every sense of the word for years without even realising it.

I have never taken the "liberal" standpoint and try to use it to formulate my worldview (the very definition of partisan fervor). Instead, I came to my own conclusions by looking at the facts as I understand them and thinking about the issues. Eventually, I realised that I was actually a liberal. Not out of "fashion" or dogma, but by education and experience. As a liberal democrat, I am allowed to come to my own conclusions in my own way. We are a party of free thought......which is one of the reasons we often appear so fractured to moderates and conservatives. While our lack of a rigid "party line" (Lieberman and Hillary Clinton both supported the war, many democrats are against gay marriage, and there are even some pro-life democrats out there) is more often a weakness than a strength, I, and most other democrats, wouldn't have it any other way. Free thought is just that important to us "leftist nutjobs".

[ July 11, 2006, 03:09: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I Can respect that Drew. And I can honestly say I respect you. I was a lurker here long before I became a member and was already familiar with the views of a lot of members when I joined. Some I completly disagree with, others I agree occasionally or a mjority of the time. I respect most all of them and most of thier views, I know I don't always come across that way, I perceive them as badly at times as they must see me. But I still respect them, they are the reason I joined in the first place.

From what I have seen of your fervent defense of Bill Clinton and other Democrats leads me to see you as a partisan rather than a free thinker. Although I know you to be of an intelligent mind of free thought I have no other explanation for this action. I was once a liberal democrat when I was young but as I grew up I saw the people of my party wanting to raise my taxes, take away my right to bear arms, promote abominable social practices, throw away most of the conservative minded politicians in the party and tell people like me we are unintelligent neanderthals because we did not agree with the path they are going down. They push good men like Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller out and stifle guys like Harold Ford Jr. so they can't express thier views without being left out as marginal. I do not see the big tent you do. My education and experience has shown me that the only people who see nearly eye to eye with me are libertarians but since they can not get an even shake in the political arena I have to cast my lot with the repulicans. I agree with them on most issues but I am not on board with everything they do. When I read your post I get the feeling you are a partisan and I don't mean that as an insult thats just my read. I do not see the democrats as fractured because of a lack of a rigidity. I see them as fractured because of a lack of tolerance and coherency. So when I see you ascribing to thier ideaology I can only think that you are a leftist partisan. That does not mean I do not respect you, It is obvious you are a thoughtful man. I enjoy reading alot of your post, while you may not cast your pearls before swine, you do seem to cast your lot with left-wingnuts. Most educated people seem to lean left or right wheather they realize it or not and while the fervor may not always be partisan it is usually left or right. I have seen exceptions to this on the BoM, Felinoid strikes me as a good example. Again I am not calling you a "leftist nutjob", you just strike me as left leaning. I don't want to insult you or call you names, don't take it personal. I would like to count you as a friend even if at the end of the day sometimes we end up saying "Man I hate that sumbich" I hope we say it like this "Man I hate that sumbich" . So heres to you My fine friend

 

Am I to glean from this, Bassil, that you think defending Bill Clinton and being a "free thinker" are mutually exclusive? That one must cast their lot with the "left-wing nut jobs" in order to possibly have something good to say about him? And if so, why is that?

(oh, I'm regretting asking already... )

 

No...sighhh, I should say glean from this as much as your little head can hold, But I see you've done that already. Zealously defending Bill Clinton no matter the circumstance is mutually exclusive of being open minded and thus being a "free thinker".

No, But one must cast their lot with the "left-wing nut jobs" or some kind of nut in order to possibly have everything good and nothing bad to say about him.

I'm regretting answering but where would the fun be if we didn't

 

Huh. I ask you a simple question and you come back with this petty, snarky bullsh*t? Lovely. So much for all your crap about respecting people with whom you disagree. My "little head" may not hold much, but at least it knows you don't capitalize after commas. Something I picked up from my left-wing nutjob 3rd grade teacher.

Now I regret this for two reasons.