Free Markets, Free People

Zombie climate-change – administration says still possible during lame-duck session

Yes, yes, we were assured that the “climate change” portion of any energy bill was dead in this Congress.  More popularly known as the “cap-and-trade” portion of such a bill, we were assured by Democratic leaders that it just wasn’t something that was possible or probable during this session of Congress.

Well, like most things they tell us, don’t ever believe anything:

Carol Browner, the White House’s top energy and environmental adviser, refused on Sunday to shut the door on passing climate change legislation this year — even though Senate Democratic leaders have conceded they lack the votes and have punted on the volatile issue.

Browner said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that President Barack Obama is still committed to pushing the bill through the Senate, and that there was "potential" for the bill to come up in a post-election, lame-duck session of Congress.

Browner’s remarks will almost certainly give ammunition to Republicans who say Democrats are plotting to do mischief in a lame-duck session — even though top congressional Democrats have thrown cold water on an overly ambitious lame-duck agenda.

Agenda politics is agenda politics and the power shifts to the loser with a majority if in fact Democrats get drubbed in November.  I mean, what do they have to lose at that point.  So it will truly become more about agenda and party  (and not what is best for America) – even more so than it is now.

Never, ever, ever think or believe the left is done with something they want badly.  Ever.  Even though the economics of an additional tax on energy at the height of a recession is absolutely the dumbest thing one can imagine doing, that won’t deter the ideologues from their agenda.

By the way, the EPA is attempting to do by fiat and interpretive regulation what the Congress hasn’t yet been able to do by law.  And, God bless ‘em, Texas has told them to go pound sand.


[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

72 Responses to Zombie climate-change – administration says still possible during lame-duck session

  • After the trail of tears with ObamaCare…which was “dead” every few days…I do NOT believe anything from the Deemocrats that the Mad Kind Barack.
    The only time we can breath easy again will be when we have FINALLY convince enough of our pols that they will politically die if they pursue this kind of crap.
    McQ…”Till” needs an S in your title.

  • My cunning plan to stop any lame-duck shenanigans: Flood Washington with “The Mother of All Tea Parties” when Congress reconvenes after the election. Two or three million Americans laying siege to Capitol Hill and vocally announcing their opposition will get the Democrats’ attention like nothing else.

  • With reconciliation off the table (thanks to the failure to actually pass a budget containing reconciliation rules as opposed to “deeming” a budget) as of the start of FY 2011 (1-October-2010), any and all lame duck antics will be very difficult.

  • Russia’s burning, a huge ice island breaks off in the arctic, the evidence that dangerous climate change is here is undeniable by anyone who honestly looks at the evidence, and yet the right mouths false claims (that this will hurt the economy, or tax increases are always bad for the economy — you don’t need an economics degree to know that kind of vast generalization is false), and refuse to do something about perhaps the biggest issue of the new Century.   So, while I am absolutely convinced the Democrats spending advantage and the GOP division (the tea party crackpots are a godsend to the democrats) mean the Democrats will remain in power, I’d say yes, do whatever is politically legal and possible to make progress in the fight against global climate change.   The Democrats should be Machiavellian — the Republicans always are when they have power.   Turnabout is fair play.

    • “and refuse to do something about perhaps the biggest issue of the new Century.  ”
      I don’t even have to translate “DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!”
      You still, are unable, to demonstrate the GUARANTEED benefits of any of this spending you’re suggesting to address climate change (just as Texas points out in their filing).  You remain convinced you can turn the clock back and things can be “the way they were”.
      I might as well suggest we sacrifice the 1st born of every family in the US to appease the weather gods, and expect to get identical results in climate change.     Perhaps if the Romans had sacrificed 1000 more bullocks the Scirian – Herulic forces wouldn’t have captured Rome.
      So, even if I WERE to agree with you on the change in climate, only 1 of us is honest enough to admit that our respective answers for solving the problem are mere superstition.    Good to see that the old sacrifice to the volcano god philosophies are still alive in the world, thank you “professor”, you are a golden example for the age of reason and enlightenment.

      • Actually the Kyoto targets were met with no economic sacrifice  and arguably benefits (for those who participated).  The idea that an international agreement would harm the economy is ridiculous — and the anti-science attitude by some is pure emotion.    In life you can’t guarantee everything you try will work.   But to use that as excuse not to work to try to come with a plan that has international agreement and the best minds in science behind it is irrational.

        • Citations, please.

        • No, they can’t PROVE the benefits of any of their reductions – it’s hypothesis – there are no charts that show exactly what the temperature/climate benefit based on reduction X for this or that gas are.   It’s all  conjecture.    Supposition, no measurable science – all unproven theory.
          “has international agreement and the best minds in science behind it is irrational.”
          Have we now?  All of them?  And I gather that the ‘best minds’ are only those that agree with your position eh?  How convenient.
          Tell me, were you the first born in your family?  We’ll need to know for the legislation I’m going to be suggesting at the next UN Conference in Tenochtitlan. The alternatives must be examined, after all, we must do something, and you can’t guarantee everything you try will work. Perhaps we can try for the virgins if the first sacrifice fails.

          • Science never proves anything, it deals with falsifiable hypotheses.  Yet science can give guidance, and can point out dangers.  I can’t prove you won’t be killed if you amble across I-95 in Boston, and I can’t prove that if you take a car you’ll not have an accident, but….

          • Scott, I suggest you sit down and think about what you just wrote.  It is pretty wrong.  For example, given a right triangle:
            a*2 + b*2 = C*2        PROVED
            Given a suitable mass of U238 and a detonator, you will get a huge explosion.  PROVED
            Given any body in orbit, I can compute where it will be in the future.  PROVED].
            Well, you get the idea.  Lot’s of science is proven and no longer very interesting.

        • Oh – KYOTO!!!! why didn’t ya say so!!!! that’s a horse of a different color!
          So, Russia, signed the magic poopgas formula paper, agreed to it back in 2004 and WHOOSH!! in 2010 the magic occurred and they got, uh…..poop,
          Now maybe they’ll stop ridiculing my first born sacrifice plan and it will be taken for the serious science that it is!

        • The idea that an international agreement would harm the economy is ridiculous

          Any restrictions on industry which will make any difference to the global climate must add a steep price to industry and consumption, or people will continue to do what they’re doing now.
          Either the guard dog bites the hell out of anyone who steps foot outside the fence, or people leave the camp, laughing at the mutt.

          and the anti-science attitude by some is pure emotion.

          The alarmists who insist that this is “settled science”, who attack anyone who expresses skepticism (a fundamental building block of Science) as a “denier” akin to a Holocaust denier, are anti-science.
          Science doesn’t depend on consensus, elections, political support, or taxpayer-funded grants.  Science deals in measurements, reason, openness, skepticism, challenges, and more challenges.
          Portraying images of polar bears isolated on melting ice, or coastal cities swallowed up by rising sea levels in a matter of decades, is an anti-scientific appeal to emotions.  Like the Republicans who exploited terrorism as an excuse to scare everyone and sidestep the rules, the Democrats (like Senator Stabenow or Al Gore) use one sensationalistic claim after another to make people so afraid they want to give up their freedom for security.  (And, of course, they’ll end up with neither in the end.)
          It isn’t scientific.
          But then, I’d expect a “libertarian” like Scott Erb to stand up for individual rights, instead of, yet once again, standing 100% on the side of Big Government and authoritarian diktats.

        • The US, under Bush, did better than most of the EU.

        • ” the best minds in science behind it”

          Sort of like ‘The best and the brightest’ a few years ago. It worked so well then, it should work well now. 

          Keep ’em coming.

          • It’s a neat little propaganda trick.  If someone expresses any dissent (even a simple lack of zealotry), they are shut out of the clique.  And, if they’re not part of the clique, then obviously there’s something wrong with them, right?
            Circular reasoning.  What a way to promote scientific thought, eh?

    • Amazingly enough I am still amazed and awed by the ignorance and malevolence displayed by this living proof that education is not the solution for social problems.

    • Ka-Ching!!!  You can go back to the Teacher’s Lounge and count your 30 peices of silver at your leisure.

    • You’re arguments, up and down this thread, are so sophomoric, Scott, that my theory that you can only deteriorate operating the way you do is being borne out. You’re getting stupider.

      You do not know a thing about climate science. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Your arguments are pabulum that wouldn’t have purchase on a PR release from an environmental lobbyist.

      You come around here because we’re having a relatively hot summer and start in with that blabber, and then you start spouting about how cold years are also more evidence of climate change (the convenient term when things are cooler than normal instead of warmer).

    • …the evidence that dangerous climate change is here is undeniable by anyone who honestly looks at the evidence…

      “Undeniable”, “settled science”, climate “deniers” are like Holocaust deniers, etc. etc..
      These are the words one expects from the closed-minded, anti-Science authoritarians who locked up Galileo or the ignorant reactionaries who prosecuted John Scopes for teaching evolution.
      Science is, by its very nature, a skeptical look at data, requiring openness, testing, retesting, and challenging the current status quo.  Once you start saying “undeniable” or “settled” when mostly you’re talking about computer simulations, you’ve abandoned the scientific method of inquiry.  And, when one group of people with a political agenda (Green is the new Red) run an overtly deceptive campaign to monopolize peer journals, misrepresent political appointees as scientific experts (IPCC), propagandize with over-the-top Hollywood special effects to scare people, and routinely taint data with “tricks”, it’s time to start questioning political activists like Scott Erb, who cheerleads all the other Big Government, anti-individualist programs like Health Care Deform, when he uses words like “undeniable.”
      Here are some facts:

      There is global warming.
      Some of the warming is likely due to anthropomorphic causes.
      However, a significant amount of warming is expected naturally, due to a long-term trend starting with the “Little Ice Age”centuries ago.
      CO2 increases temperature on a logarithmic basis (i.e., the trend levels off because you have to keep doubling the CO2 to get another degree hotter).  Even if human industry continues to produce CO2 unabated, that CO2 itself will not cause catastrophic results.
      Predictions of catastrophic results assume significant positive feedback.  In a positive feedback model, additional factors act as a multiplier for the effect of CO2.  Like, for example, methane released from the tundra.  However, there are also natural forces which act as negative feedbacks, but the more alarmist the scientist (or journalist), the more they tend to minimize these in their models.
      If the positive feedback is much more than 1 (like 2, 3, or more, as some alarmists have predicted, with coastal cities being swallowed up and mid-latitude locations turning to Sahara-like deserts), then please explain why that same factor doesn’t show up when you take the same formulas back in time over the past several centuries, when we know the actual temperatures?  (Applying the formulas to data in the past century, you get a multiplier close to 1.)
      If, like the most shrill alarmists like Al Gore, you claim there is a “tipping point” at which the climate is going to go into a frenzied feedback loop from which there is no return, turning us into a Venusian ball of steam, then please explain how in the 4+ billion years of the Earth’s history, this “tipping point” was never reached before.  The Earth’s climate has a long history of “correcting” for ice ages and warming periods.
      MOST IMPORTANTLY: If the more dire predictions are accurate (and the evidence doesn’t support them), there is really nothing we can do which will change the outcome, unless you’re willing to cause deprivation and death on the scale of hundreds of millions of people.
      The political leaders who know these facts don’t intend to cause enough catastrophic economic destruction to make any difference, but are cynically exploiting the fear to give them political power, much in the way that tyrants throughout history have exploited mass hysteria.  (Even recently, those who support the Green/Red politics have often been among the most vocal critics of the Bush administration for exploiting terrorism to pass the Patriot Act and get away with all kinds of nasty crap.)

      Warren Meyer, a layman, has some good presentations debunking many of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming myths, which Scott Erb seems to have swallowed.  (Or, is Scott merely pretending to believe, so he can help his fellow “leftists” to cynically exploit the fear?)

    • Hmmm Machiavellian.  That about describes the health care bill.  You know, 2500 unread pages that needed to be passed to find out what was in it.  The one that required ginormous bribes to a flock of Senators?   The one that was passed under reconciliation that had no business being done under reconciliation?  It would be fun to see it undone under reconciliation.  Yes, I would say that is the height of Machiavellian, so please don’ t try to lie to us and claim it is a “Republican’ trait.
      We the same think with the financial reform bill.  Only unserious people would let two of the major creators of the whole problem, Dodd and Frank, write this monstrosity and then manage to leave out Freddie and Fannie and do absolutely nothing about TBTF.   That, too, was  Machiavellian.
      Now, while you talk about drought in Russia as if you are certain that was a result of global warming and note the calving of an iceberg, you fail to note an uncommonly quiet hurricane season in the Atlantic basin and Argentina having a significantly colder winter than normal. This is the problem with you global warming “true believers”.  You cherry pick your data and “hide the decline”.

  • Glad to hear you say it Scott.

    If that’s how you want it, I’m happy to have it played that way.  Very happy.

    Don’t you dare come crying around though when the ante gets upped.

    It’s all good. You have no idea. No idea at all.

    • The Republicans have been playing it that way for a long time.   You have no idea — I worked for a GOP Senator in the eighties and saw Machiavellian politics in its full force.   I have been in the beast, have you?

      • And here I was thinking your were only metaphorically a pile a crap…!!!

      • Don’t worry pal. You’re small time.

        You’ll get it exactly as you want it.

        Game on.

      • If you are going to claim that, you need to show some examples.   You seem to be careful not to.

        • The budget.  Reagan ran up huge deficits (and he had a majority counting southern Democrats), saying budget deficits didn’t matter.   Very Machiavellian — to win, cut taxes, increase debt during a boom (caused by oil price declines) and claim it’s because you’re conservative!

          • You can’t write without lying.
            Reagan never passed a budget, vastly increased revenues, and was double-crossed by the Demoncrats of the era.
            Like the debt load on a business, deficits CAN be at levels that are both manageable and PRODUCTIVE, or at levels that are RUINOUS AND CANNOT BE REPAID.
            Oil prices declined when REAGAN removed the Nixon price  controls.  Idiot.

          • Reagan never passed a budget, vastly increased revenues, and was double-crossed by the Demoncrats of the era.

            Ronald Reagan campaigned on reigning in government and gave some great speeches.  But, in practice, his fiscal conservatism and anti-big government credentials are almost entirely mythical.  Reagan signed budgets and failed to stand up to Democrats on government growth.
            You may want to make him a hero, but in 100 years, anyone who has an accurate comprehension of American history will regard Ronald Reagan as an empty suit, whose only accomplishment was standing up to the Soviets.
            Whenever I hear the conservatives describe someone as a “Reagan Republican”, I cringe.  That’s only marginally better than a “Rockefeller Republican” (*spit*).

          • Scott, are you going crazy.  Reagan did not cut taxes during a boom.  We were in a Volcker double dip.  If you remember the early 80’s as boom times, then I don’t think you were really there (in the whole early 80’s).
            So, we now have a new definition of Machiavellian: cut taxes during a double dip recession.  Does that mean if the Democrats do not let the Bush tax cuts expire, they are Machiavellian?   Setting kind of a low bar there.

      • ” You have no idea — I worked for a GOP Senator in the eighties and saw Machiavellian politics in its full force.”

        Awww, poor baby. Did little Erbie get his  idealistic illusions shattered by that mean old REPUBLICAN Senator?  How traumatic that must have been. Caused you to flee to  academia where the air is pure, the leftist equivalent of entering a nunnery. 

        Grow up.

        Nah, don’t. You are much too amusing as is.

  • Re Erb:   For heaven’s sake.  Last winter was one of the coldest on record across much of Russia, especially Siberia.  Snow and cold dominated Europe.  The eastern US major metropolitan areas had their snowiest winter on record.  Florida, record or near record cold.   Now Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and Chile are experiencing their coldest/snowiest winter in decades. The  Antarctic ice sheet is on track to have the largest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979.
    And what do we hear from the warmists;  This is weather, not climate.  Nothing to see here…move along.

    But every time an event occurs that can be portrayed as the harbinger of a climate warming world, the warmists comments are at full throttle.  It’s not weather now…it’s climate. 

    Russia as a country is not burning.  Western Russia is experiencing near record heat…hottest since the 1920s or 30s.  Care to blame CO2 for events 70, 80 years?   While western Russia is hot, central Russia is abnormally cool, but this gets no play in the media.  This is standard meteorological fare.  Warm atmospheric ridges are balanced by cool atmospheric troughs.  Hot weather this summer in the eastern U.S. is balanced by the west coast chill.  San Diego is having its coldest summer since 1911.

    The Greenland ice sheet break is the largest since…..1962.  What caused that break?  And only a University Prof  thinks that above normal temperatures can lead to a fracturing of a 500-700 foot think ice sheet flowing from the Greenland interior.  It is not melting.   This is called calving.  This is what glaciers do.  Once the glacial tongue extends too far over the adjacent waters from the Greenland mainland, it fractures.  Always has….always will.


    • Hater…!  You’re probably a Holocaust Denier, too…!!!

      • I know, this guy obviously wants Erb’s kids to suffer SUFFER!!!!! oh, wait, don’t we all?
        oh dear we’re evil.  Can you pass the gas can Brother Rags, I need to go gratuitously set a fire to something to increase the carbon foot-print.

        • Hell, I’m inflamed to the point of repeating my Earth Day ritual…turning on every light in  and out of the place, twisting the stereo (Pink Floyd) volume to 11, and immolating a piece of RED MEAT on LIVE COALS WHILE air conditioning to my heart’s content!!!!
          I call it Rational Thought Day, and I celebrate the bounty we enjoy as a result of actual…SCIENCE!!!!

          • Do you have all the doors and windows open?  It’s best to air condition with the doors and windows open?  I  have readings and a chart that shows the net improvement of a reduction of a thousandth of a degree fahrenheit of a in the vicinity of my house when I do that!   Think of the cumulative effect if we ALL did it!
            Now if someone could to the Hindenburg calculations on this to remove the uncertainty we’d know it would all work at the quantum level!  Frankly my theoretical math sucks so someone else will have to prove it, but I’ll do the lecture tour if it involves flying lots of places and being treated nicely at expensive conferences.  I was also hoping for a grant to further my research on the human sacrifice effect on the environment.

          • Richard Nikoley does the same.  And, he says it best.
            Even before the Green (Red) movement picked up steam, I naturally hated waste—not to the point of being OCD about it, but I love the elegance of efficient simplicity.  I voluntarily recycle cans.  I use shopping bags sometimes (Sam’s Club has some big-assed ones that allow me to carry 10 plastic bagfuls in each hand) but sometimes get the plastic bags because I reuse those for garbage bags or other convenient uses.  I’m constantly after the kids and grandkids about wasting electricity.
            But I will go out of my way to avoid giving any of  my money to anything which overtly advertises as “eco-friendly” or “green”.  Usually, that’s only half-true (if at all), and it only gives encouragement to big businesses to try to turn us into unthinking green robots.
            Take recycling, for example.  About half of what you carefully sort into bins ends up in the same landfill as the rest of the trash.  Nothing but metal is worth recycling with today’s technology.  (Paper comes close to break-even in the right circumstances.)  All the plastic recycling programs are make-work taxpayer boondoggles.  All of them.

    • Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change.    You can always find excuses to distrust science and evidence.  But the stakes are high, and the denier rhetoric is a cottage industry financed by some big businesses that are protecting their bottom line.

      • Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change.   Which we know has ALWAYS happened, that happens due to forces we don’t BEGIN to be able to model, are TOTALLY outside our ability to control, and have NOTHING to do with the evil blight of humanity.
        And we know all that because of…you know…SCIENCE.  Puke.

      • Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change.

        That is true, and by itself it is no cause for alarm.  The climate changes constantly, and we know that in the past the shifts were far more extreme than they have been this past century.  I realize that some people use the term “climate change” interchangeably with “man-made global warming” but the two are not the same thing.
        Or perhaps that isn’t what you mean?  I have seen some people claim that extreme cold weather is just more proof of man-made global warming.  Just like extremely hot weather, extremely mild weather, extremely turbulent weather, and so on.  It strikes me as a pretty blunt tactic.  The other tactic is to dismiss cold weather by explaining that the sample is too small (“weather is not climate!”) and then embracing hot weather as evidence of “climate change.”
        I think that ship has sailed, but it may remain in port just long enough for congress to implement some form of Cap and Trade, which I think will be a disaster.  It will cause considerable economic suffering across the economic spectrum, while doing nothing to actually affect the climate positively.  In other words, it’s the sort of thing that government has shown itself to be very, very good at doing.

        • Look up more on carbon scams and green jobs scams.
          The frauds are promising us that these programs are going to save us, and make the changes less costly (or, even, paradoxically cheaper).  Scott Erb is just parroting their BS.

        • Politicians cannot do anything to reduce CO2 by an amount that will matter.  Any measure stringent enough to cause a real reduction will be economically devastating and people will reject it.
          If you believe the alarmist rhetoric, you must support $15/gal. gasoline and a 300% tax on utilities from “non-green” energy sources, right damned now, today.  Anything less will make no difference to the climate in 50 years.  Not one bit.
          All symbolism, no substance.
          There are carpetbaggers lined up around the block hoping to cash in on the “climate change” hysteria before people get wise.

      • Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change.

        No sh*t?  Wow!  How utterly profound!
        Of course, for the billions of years before humans, the climate was static, never changing.  Right?

        …the denier rhetoric is a cottage industry financed by some big businesses that are protecting their bottom line.

        I guarantee that the amount of financing from government tax coffers, political groups, NGOs etc., who are pushing the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming myth is orders of magnitude more than all of the money spent by big businesses.  In fact, many energy companies support politicians who want to impose stricter regulations.  That’s a win-win for them, because they keep small competitors from being able to afford to enter the market, and they gain PR bonus points in a cynical ploy to stave off more draconian legislation.
        Look at the temperatures back a few centuries, including the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, and tell me with a straight face that the current climate change is something extraordinary.  In a full context, it’s not all that scary.  Only when you chop off the charts to remove historical variations does it look like an apocalypse.
        Now, please explain how tracing back in time (for temperatures we actually know to be accurate, rather than computer simulations), the positive feedbacks which are sure to multiply the effects of CO2 to the point of drowning coastal cities don’t show up in the data.

      • No, Scott, we are always setting weather records.  Extreme weather is not an indicator of global warming (now called climate change to hide the fact we aren’t getting warming).  The very fact, no one is talking about “global cooling” as they were in the 70’s and the adherents are attempting to rename it to climate change (something that always happens) shows the battle is lost.  Good.

      • “Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change.”

        Just a hint-climate determines weather, not the other way around. And there is a difference between the two.

        This goes into my collection of Erp classics.   

    The Deemocrat election strategy…RUN AWAY…!!!  (from you record).
    Erp exceeds himself today in terms of his desperate delusions, and his letting his TRUE self shine through.
    “Left-libertarian”, indeed.
    Collectivist tyrant pom-pom girl is more the case.  “Machi…Machi…Machiavelli…”.

    • Hey Rags, what party got us into wars that we couldn’t successfully finish (though Obama is extricating us — perhaps too slowly — from these disasters)?   What party increased deficit spending in a boom, setting up bubble economies leading to the Great Recession of 2007 – ????  To pretend that all away and blame Obama for everything is, well, the election strategy you’re describing.  You’re running away from how the GOP’s ideas of “less taxes and more killing” created a nightmare and just demonize the left.    The reality is there  are good ideas on both sides of the aisle and the less the two sides just call names and actually compromise and cooperate, the better.   Climate change is one area where the GOP could participate with conservative ideas that don’t deny science and use ideology to reject the problem.  Instead, ideology trumps reason within the GOP on this issue — evidence is cherry picked because they believe the market must always be best and any question to that threatens the edifice of the ideology.   It’s irrationality, but an irrationality that the next generation will pay for.

      • Hey, dude….it isn’t MY strategy.  Read the link, fool.
        I’m no fan of BOOOOSH, or the stupid party’s excesses.   Bubble economy?  You mean Bwany Frank-lover’s creation…???
        I reject without comment all your “left-libertarian” (which reads remarkably like Media Mutters crap) gibberish.

      • “What party increased deficit spending in a boom, setting up bubble economies leading to the Great Recession of 2007 – ????
        What party crafted the legislative spending bills of 2007?
        it was the – ????? oh dear me…, a year after they take power, we go into recession….tsk tsk tsk – and been there ever since – who’d have thunk?

        • The party in power from 2000 to 2007 did most of it.  The Democrats came into power because the public was fed up with the GOP, their wars, and their deficits.

          • Oh, and they lied a lot.  Like you…!!!  So much in common…

          • Yeah, I recall hearing how BAAAAAD the economy was under Bush.  Funny, it’s all roses and honey now.  Media bias?  Nah, it’s all good, just like the magic applied to the oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for three months.

      • Or are you going to suggest that the Executive Branch drafts the budget legislation?  Hmmmmmmm???

      • Scott, Scott, Scott, you are getting ridicuous.  Bush won Iraq and Obama is trying to take credit.  When you talk about parties, which party extracted us from a war we were winning, abandoned our ally, left that ally to untold suffering and “redeucation?  Which one Scott, huh, huh, huh.
        Are you dreading the start of school?  Your posts on this thread are stunningly absurd.

        • Are you f**king kidding?  Iraq was an abject failure.  There was no victory, none of the goals were met.  We’re just trying to get out of there without disaster.   To call Iraq a success is absurd and ridiculous.  Afghanistan is actually getting worse, thanks to neglect due to the disaster in Iraq.  If you think those wars were successes, you seriously need to take a course on world politics. I teach one, I could sign you into my class if you head up here.

          • Rank…wrong…opinion.
            Before I took one of your email “classes”, I gargle Draino.  But I pity to fooo you do indocrinate…who doesn’t twitter behind her hand at what a tool you are.

          • What???? Are you claiming Saddam is still there, Al Quada is active and controlling, and all the votes were staged and predetermined?  That is what it would take to claim “none of the goals were met”.
            If that is what you teach in “world politics”, no wonder our kids come out with much and can’t find a job.

          • Supposed to have been “mush”, not “much”.

      • Why do you guys keep playing with this fool?  He is here for one reason only – the continuance of the Liberal Narrative as espoused by his Democratic Masters.

        Anybody here see Erb say anything truly negative about the Obamaites?

        Anybody here see Erb do anything but spout Dem Talking points?

        Anybody here see Erb project anything closely resembling coherent thought?

        Let him make his statements so that he can go back and collect his 30 Pieces of silver for doing his part in the furtherance of the Liberal Narrative.  Pat him on the head and tell him he can now go and play like the good little troll that he is.

        • Oh, but foils are FUN…!!!

        • Erb is useful. You get to see a lot of the Left’s official lies from a semi-official liar like him. What’s frustrating about him is that he is an actual person and not just a computer program as has been jokingly suggested here from time to time. He’s very much like an old Communist (of the CPUSA variety) who is expected to adhere to the Party line no matter what. I can see him sitting in one of those old Communist classes that Howard Zinn held for Party members back in the late 40s, early 50s in Brooklyn (Cf. Zinn’s FBI file was just released). And Scott does think that Zinn’s “America With All the Good Parts Left Out” (aka “A People’s History of the United States”) is a great work of history (He’s also a fan of the unrepentant Stalinist Eric Hobsbawm). So it doesn’t take a dotted line to connect Erb to the Communists of yesteryear. You can use a solid straight line, and draw it right through Zinn.

          My lingering question is whether Scott is just due and owing to the Cause because that was his ticket in academentia, or whether he was actually recruited at some point. I’ve always thought that the marriage into a family of old Soviet nomenklatura in character for him, but how much in character? The result of proclivity or process?

          • I still prefer Rob Robertson’s elegant description: “disingenuous fraud”.  (I posted as “Eagle Eye” in those days.)
            As Rob put it, years later, Usenet was like a calliope, endlessly pumping out the same notes.  Erb just brought his sheet music to QandO and seems to think he can bring the old carnival atmosphere to this place, too.

          • I believe, but I won’t dispute it if Rob disagrees, that I coined the description of Scott as a “disingenuous fraud,” and that Rob took favor with it and used it. That’s the way I remember it.

            I don’t think that Scott is trying to revive his Usenet act, because I have it on firm authority that Scott was like this well before Usenet. In fact, Scott is barely aware of his surroundings. It was always inconvenient to know where he was and who was around him, so he never bothered to learn.

            The straight line I refer to, back to the posture of Communists of old (of the CPUSA stripe), is not necessarily the best explanation for him, but rather the best description of his lineage, even though he hoots about how opposed he is to old Soviet Communism. One would expect some distance from something so catastrophic and discredited, but in so many places there is a nearness of outlook and attitude and conformity to Party line that the claimed distance is unimportant.

          • I believe, but I won’t dispute it if Rob disagrees, that I coined the description of Scott as a “disingenuous fraud,” and that Rob took favor with it and used it. That’s the way I remember it.

            I stand corrected.

      • “what party got us into wars that we couldn’t successfully finish”

        Like Korea and that other place John Kerry made famous?
        Man, you are on a roll today.  

  • Remember when Global Cooling was the coming catastrophe?  There was that, the “population bomb”, the hole in the ozone, and quite a few others that scientists got their panties in a wad over.

    • The modern Malthusian NEEDS to hate humanity…over SOMETHING.  They have no problem making crap up.
      Hope and Change!  Beautiful….

  • Comments such as “Extreme weather — hot and cold — is an indication of climate change” gives me severe pain between the eyes…somewhat akin to an ice cream headache.  How does one argue with such inanity.

    Extreme weather is the tails of the distribution that makes up climate…not climate change.

    If you want to argue that extreme weather is becoming more frequent..then do so…with evidence.  The only study I recall that demonstrated same looked at extreme rain events (days with over 2″ of rain in 24 hours) and concluded that there is an extra day every 2 years (and only in parts of the U.S.) with this type of rain event.  I’m sure this made a strong impression on us all.

    And even if there is strong evidence of significant changes in extremes,  can that be attributed to human influences on the climate, or just nature doing what it does?  Note that all those terrible scenarios of climate in the year 2100 are based on models.  Even the warmists are careful to call these “projections” and not “forecasts”.   Ask them why the conclusion that these changes are due to human influences, and the answer is…we don’t know what else to attribute it to.  Kinda flimsy answer on which to base the shift of trillions of dollars of a nation’s resources.

    • I seem to recall reading that we ARE in period of EXTREME weather…extremely hospitable to humans.
      “Extreme weather” is anything that we aren’t used to having…to a mind like Erp’s.  What’s apparent is that weather WAY more extreme than we’ve seen in recorded history…especially recorded scientific history…is what nature sees as “normal“.

  • So, while I am absolutely convinced the Democrats spending advantage and the GOP division (the tea party crackpots are a godsend to the democrats) mean the Democrats will remain in power

    >>> As usual, you can only see what’s in front of your face.

    I WANT the Dems to remain in power Scotty. I want them to have small, unworkable majorities, unable to move any more of their agenda, but also leaving Baracky powerless to play the “GOP OBSTRUCTION” card.

    More to the point, the real plum this election season is in the statehouses. And the GOP is set to take quite a slew of them. You want it Machiavellian?  You’ll see plenty of it when the GOP gets their hands on redistricting. Remember, no crying.

  • Bloated “sex poddle” declares “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.”