This whole diatribe is exactly what pushed middle spectrum voters to actually vote against Clinton. More aggressive division and partisan line drawing is the problem, not the solution.

Anybody not 100% committed to a pro-choice stance was sick and tired of the far left calling them evil for it.

Anybody that had any thoughts that your choices regarding how to have sex and who to have it with were in fact choices were tired of being called slurs like homophibic.

Anybody who didn't believe carbon taxes or cap and trade markets were the answer to climate change was sick of being charged with hating the children and 'denying' fundamental science.

Anybody watching angry calls for safe spaces re-implementing segregation as though it was a good thing was tired of it.

Like it or not, a large part of America disagreed on the extremity of the establishment's direction on these and other areas. Trump was the one candidate nobody wanted, not the media, not the Democratic party, not even the Republican party.

I believe the divisive winner takes all approach to complex and sensitive social issues drove a lot of voters to pick Trump as the none of the above option.

For the record, I didn't vote Trump. I'm Canadian and couldn't vote at all, but if I could I'd have voted Clinton. I would have voted Clinton in spite of disliking her as a clone of her husband that actively fought to prevent action on the Rwandan genocide. Which is to say, in any other election I'd have lobbied for a vote anyone but Clinton campaign. Awful that the Republicans managed to find someone worse in Trump...

Great article.

Romney: "However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk"

Nope, wrong, same old climate-denial bullshit. He tempered it for the target SciAm audience, but it's the same old "Well... we just don't know for sure" nonsense.

The serious scientific community has absolute consensus on climate change. They know it's happening, they know it's man-made, and they know we have to move immediately to mute the damage. The only "debate" is between actual scientists and industry hacks.>> ^deedub81:

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Read the candidate's answers to the question above: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-scie
nce-debate

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

Read the candidate's answers to the question above: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

I find commercial media political analysis to be pretty stupid in general. They often get hung up on petty details, missing the important points, or perhaps not allowed to speak of important points for fear of scaring off corporate investors. I don't waste my time with either Olbermann (though I don't think he should have been booted off his network) or O'Reilly, although Maddow is pretty good. PBS, NPR and print media offer much deeper, more intellectual coverage, probably because they worry less about pleasing advertisers and can focus on doing their job.

The center is all very relative in our politics. Right of center Democrats who support common sense programs like health care are considered extremists; in the rest of the world, healthcare is a bipartisan issue. The American 'center' lies between right of center moderate dems, and batshit loonies like Sarah Palin on the right. It's not really a middle at all, it's more of a mean; a mean that shifts further and further to the right.

I challenge you to find a genuine liberal extremist who holds any political sway.

Anyway, I agree with Maher that being centrist for the sake of being centrist is a fools errand. It doesn't make you wise, intelligent or in any way independent. When you look at the agenda of the American right, it's easy to see that it is all based around sucking up to corporations. Cap and trade, corporate tax cuts, limiting social services, climate science "skepticism".... They offer nothing helpful to the average Joe. Once you cast a vote for corporatism, you lose the right to call yourself independent.

Anyway, the laptop is almost out of juice, so I'm going to cut this short...



In reply to this comment by hPOD:
It's hard to take an obviously biased [and somewhat insane] Bill Maher seriously. Maher hasn't been watchable for about 4 years now, and he's getting worse and worse. I understand the point you're trying to make, but as a person who truly stands in the middle, I see the extremes in both sides all the time, and that includes Olbermann. Unlike most, I actually DO watch Olbermann AND O'Riley. Well, not Olbermann anymore, but you get the point. I know you want to believe that everything Olbermann touches on is fact based, and everything O'Riley opines on is propaganda based, but that's not reality. There are times both make solid points, and there are times you can tell their <insert right/left> leaning opinions shine on their biased tendencies.

My voting record stands by the fact I call things as I see them, down the middle. In the last 5 Presidential elections, I've voted for 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Independent.

A lot of people love to say they're down the middle, and they can see/hear both sides, but their slanted voting records show otherwise. I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates, whether those votes end up being mistakes in the long run there is little I can do about, but the fact is, I'm one of the very few that actually does ride the fence. Quite a few of my friends, for example, claim the same...but their voting records show pure republican or pure democratic bias.

Maher has let his anti-religious lunacy get the better of him, and this is coming from an avid Hitchen's fan, who is also anti-religious. Hitchen's said it best when he mocked Maher's crowd for believing anything he says and laughing at any Bush joke he used. If I cared enough, going back to the beginning of the United States, I'd venture to say that I could find good things and bad things every single President has done, including Bush Jr and Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
0:50 is relevant to our conversation:

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Critiques-Stewart-Colbert-Rally

I replied generically on the video, but as a reply to anything regarding cap & trade this reasoning doesn't track. Maybe it would sorta be appropriate as a response if what cap & trade consisted of was a flat tax on gasoline.

I'm also for repealing the subsidization of all dirty energy -- and the entire environmental movement would likely agree with me on that (even alleged fraud Al Gore!).

So here's the only real connection. In both cases we're talking about market externalities -- cases where market transactions between two entities cause harm (or benefit) to people not involved in the transaction. This is never desirable; you want prices to reflect the harm or benefit you're causing those other people, otherwise you open yourself up to malinvestment's ugly stepsister, malconsumption (and yes, I made that word up, but it is just like that other made-up Austrian word, only regarding consumption instead of investment).

One highly-regarded way to bring externalities under the auspices of market forces is to use Pigouvian taxes. Sometimes you get some centrally-planned tax rate (like all flat sin taxes), but ideally you want some sort of market-driven mechanism setting the size of the Pigouvian tax -- which is what cap and trade is all about.

Anyways, I'm just leading you to water (100% piss-free!), I don't really have much hope you'll drink.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Teller-Bullshit-Soft-Drink-Tax

Up the butthole with this one, dear sir!

I don't know. We know global warming is real, but no one can accurately say it's man made. Over 95% of the carbon emissions are naturally made, the majority of emissions coming from volcanoes. These things were around long before the industrial age, and life on earth seems to have evolved just fine. We also know our earth has experienced global warming in the past, so this may be a cyclical event man has no influence over.

You really should read more about what climate scientists who study this say. For one, the massive climate changes in the past coincide with mass extinctions. For another, study of how the environment responds to differing levels of CO2 shows that small changes in total CO2 output can cause significant changes in climate (as in, the kind that causes mass extinctions). Then there's also the whole idea of multipliers, where small warming causes a change like the melting of permafrost, which makes that part of the earth less reflective (and also amounts to a change in climate).

In the 70s "they" said we were facing an ice age. Did we? Remember acid rain? Another 70s scare that turned out to be a red herring for environmentalists. Good science always prevails, and there's probably a good reason why Al Gore is being sued for fraud.

Did "they" say that? From what I've read on the supposed new ice age, there was a small minority scientists who said that, and the media amplified it completely out of proportion.

It's funny that you bring up acid rain though. You know why that went away? We implemented cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions, and it essentially eradicated the problem.

As for the "good reason" Al Gore is being sued for fraud, it's because there's a tremendous amount of right-wing political groups and corporations that want to discredit the entire environmental movement. A cost-effective way to do that is to try to tarnish the movement's most recognizable representative.

I can give you the Libertarian perspective: you solve it with lawsuits. If you pollute and it affects the health of others, then they have a right to sue for damages. There's no corporation limit to liability in a free market, and class actions would prove to be silly. People individually would sue the company and that would deter them from damaging the environment.

Ahh, so that's how you completely disguise all responsibility. If I get killed in a road accident during a freak snowstorm caused by global warming, mintbbb has to choose between using the life insurance money to settle affairs and pay off debts she may not be able to service without my income, or gamble it by trying to engage in a lawsuit against a coalition of oil, gas, coal, and power companies?

If we were talking about someone pissing in my water supply, would I really have to drink it, and then later prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did some harm to me before I could expect law enforcement to get involved? Couldn't I just say "I don't consent to have pee put in my drinking water!" and get the police to stop people who wouldn't comply?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:

Wow, Ron Paul is such a good soldier for the coal and oil companies.

So where do you stand on the whole carbon emissions and climate change thing? Are you one of these people who think scientists are engaged in a massive socialist conspiracy? Maybe just all completely wrong?

Or do you think there's some better way to deal with it than a market-driven solution like cap and trade?

I mean, read this, and tell me how you think we should deal with property rights when it comes to air pollution.

It seems to me that the conservative/libertarian goal is to keep air an unowned collective property that anyone can damage without repercussion. That's curiously dissonant from what you guys normally say about property issues.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you want to sign the petition or what?

The Fed is a private bank. It should be abolished. They have more control over YOU than the government. They set interest rates, expand and contract the money supply. The government likes this FED since the can borrow from it instead of asking the American people for the money. We should be printing our own money supply as mandated in the Constitution.

Now for this video. The Fed HAS dumped Trillions into the economy. The people are not spending/ companies are not hiring because people are scared about this administration policies of raising taxes / OBAMA care/ possible cap and trade. And the banks are hording it.

If the democrats stay in power after this fall election the economy will get worse. If the Republicans gain control and repeal most of of the damaging policies that have been passed in the last 1 1/2 years and promise to stop spending ( like for real, not ) then maybe there will be some good economic news next year.

Netrunner why do you post such leftest crap?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I disagree that the government needs to "create a market for something". If it is one thing governments are very poor at doing is creating markets for things. People do this better and faster than government think tanks. I do however support new understandings in pollution in how it interacts with property rights. If you clog my air with filth, there has to be some legal ramification to that. It is due time to assess how property is defined in terms of air, water, and the like, I welcome that conversation.
(edited: Spelling, dear god man spelling)


I don't mean "create a market" meaning "we're going to use subsidies and taxes to make something that isn't economically viable on its own popular", I mean literally create a market as in "we're going to stop people from taking other people's stuff".

Read up more on the theory and practice of cap and trade. For real-world results, look at the sulfur cap-and-trade they implemented in the 70's to combat acid rain.

The basic idea is that we get an independent read on how much CO2 capacity there is in the environment, and then auction off tradeable permits for emissions. The market sets the price via supply and demand.

@blankfist I think phrasing it as "a great number of Dems leading us down [the path to fascism]" just makes you look a bit crazy.

There are more than a few Democratic politicians who espouse things I find repugnant, but there aren't a "great number" of those, especially when compared to regular people who self-identify as Democrats (like me).

If you mean that things like health care reform, cap and trade, and net neutrality are all fascist or proto-fascist, you're seriously suffering from Nazi tourette's, and probably couldn't articulate the difference between modern day Europe and Nazi-occupied Europe.

There's real Palinite/Tea Party proto-fascist movement to fight, and you still don't seem to realize that you're either cheering them on, or being an apologist for their behavior 9 times out of 10.

Somebody around here said that the global temperatures were actually going down over the past decade. How exactly does that jive with NASA's report that the past decade was the hottest on record?

“There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated." - James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Ya know what? When scientists say that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, I avoid smoking. When scientists say that greenhouse gasses increase the risk of global climate change that could cause the extermination of the human species, I avoid creating greenhouse gasses.

As far as I'm concerned, Global Climate Destabilization is about as contested as Evolution. The only people speaking out about it are the nutbars that would say anything to keep the argument going.

On the other hand, if you want to debate what to do about it, that's entirely different. I've heard some pretty bad things about Cap and Trade. We need to keep that discussion going until we can be reasonably sure our chosen course will help (or hurt) everybody on fairly equitable terms.

>> ^brain:
I hate this video. She seems to have some good points here and there, but most of it seems like total propaganda to make you hate cap and trade.

Occasionally she gets a bit too dismissively pessimistic, but ultimately she's not saying that cap & trade as envisioned wouldn't work, she's mostly saying that the same evil companies and their lobbyists are getting things put into the existing legislation that will make it meaningless, and possibly worse than meaningless.

For example, I knew about the giveaway part, but I didn't know you could get credits for offsets. They either need to kill that, or regulate the crap out of it.

That's where the new Ponzi scheme will come from -- fake carbon offsets.

I hate this video. She seems to have some good points here and there, but most of it seems like total propaganda to make you hate cap and trade.

1. How does it make any sense that she's comparing cap and trade to the dot com bubble and the sub prime mortgage bubble?! What does it mean that its "coming from the same guys"? What is she even talking about? Why does she automatically infer that there will be a carbon credit bubble that will burst? I don't think I'll be investing my money in carbon credits anyway. Is she just scared of the word 'market'? Or is she intentionally playing off of people's fears of 'markets' in recent times?

2. She mentions that we'll be giving carbon credits to companies that already pollute. She may have a point there. That sounds stupid. If you read on wikipedia though, some cap and trade plans auction off all carbon credits to companies. Other ones "grandfather" companies into carbon credits. Some plans do both. She decides to not even mention auctioning carbon credits. She decides to just rename all cap and trade plans to "cap and giveaway" plans. Nice propaganda.

3. She mentions that people can cheat the laws to receive carbon offset credits. Ok.. lets fix that. Lets get rid of carbon offset credits if we have to. Why would we scrap the whole thing?

If she was just discussing points and problems, it would have been great. But it seems like the whole point of the video is to make you scared of cap and trade. The fundamental concept of cap and trade is still sound.

You don't really understand people, do you? Science doesn't dictate their desire for power, wealth and control of others. Cap and Trade is just another vehicle for this. Energy credits are not hard to understand. It's the creative ways governments, businesses and traders will find to corrupt something that is theoretically meant to be "good".

>> ^tristangrace:
You don't really understand cap and trade do you? Maybe lose the rhetoric and instead try to convey you point with proven examples and science?


If you are implying that I am necessarily religious, then you are wrong (once again). I have no faith in that jackass in the White House or his crooked administration. I have little faith in Congress. I have no faith in the media. However, I have full faith that the socialists will continue with their steady stream of pointless Glenn Beck videos (and the like) to steer attention away from the White House failures and the fact that obammy is just a Bush of a different color.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Rotty doesn't need to understand things. He's got faith.