Rand Paul Rips an Eco-Nanny a New One

[G.T.]

Light bulbs that produce so much less light that people add more lamps… Toilets that don’t flush correctly so you flush 2-3 times… I mean, this is not rocket science for a topic.

It is for the authoritarian nanny state do-gooders.

you forgot judgemental and pompous.

"nanny state do gooders" is also judgemental and pompous.

 

[rightwinger]

It is for the authoritarian nanny state do-gooders.

you forgot judgemental and pompous.

"nanny state do gooders" is also judgemental and pompous.

Nothing wrong with being a nanny state.....or a do gooder for that matter

Citizens rely on their government to protect them and look out for their long term interests. If you want to derisively call that a "Nanny"....so be it

Individual citizens cannot stand up to big business. If one entity, with the money to do so, gobbles up all the resources and then dumps his waste into our groundwater ....all in the name of PROFIT ....We rely on our Nanny State to look out for us

Libertarians can never operate in a modern society. No Libertarian State has ever flourished. The ideal of "I got mine....you worry about yours" cannot work in a modern society

 

[logical4u]

^the epitome of lecturing someone.

The epitome of telling a busybody to mind his own goddamn business....Which is advice you'd be best advised to take.

I don't need some old angry assed partisan who peruses message-boards to shout his disturbed bullshit, daily, to tell me how to behave. Spanks, slappy.

I am not angry. I am amused that you cannot put a reasonable statement together to support your "partisan" position on any of your liberal ideas. I can clearly demonstrate that "quitting" all of those "evils" (technology, electricity) will be absolutely destructive for millions of peoples. Yet, you can not demonstrate any improvements off of one of "your" (because you told us you think for yourself) ideas. You can give pie in the sky dreams and visions, but no evidence, no proof, and for the most part are unwilling to sacrifice (voluntarily) in your personal life what you are proposing to have legislated for the rest of us to sacrifice in our lives.

I have a lot more respect for a person that decides he will live off the grid and installs a 25 volt DC system in his home, and works around modern conveniences of 120 volt AC, or does without. He does his best to minimize his "imprint" and after living that way for years lets others know how to do the same thing with a full explanation of the sacrifices/bonuses it will bring. But that would be a "doer" some one that walks the walk, not someone that "just" talks the talk.

 

[dilloduck]

you forgot judgemental and pompous.

"nanny state do gooders" is also judgemental and pompous.

Nothing wrong with being a nanny state.....or a do gooder for that matter

Citizens rely on their government to protect them and look out for their long term interests. If you want to derisively call that a "Nanny"....so be it

Individual citizens cannot stand up to big business. If one entity, with the money to do so, gobbles up all the resources and then dumps his waste into our groundwater ....all in the name of PROFIT ....We rely on our Nanny State to look out for us

Libertarians can never operate in a modern society. No Libertarian State has ever flourished. The ideal of "I got mine....you worry about yours" cannot work in a modern society

Unfortunately people now demand that their short term responsibilties be taken care of by the govt who gets money from people who take responsibilty for themselves. It's stealing.

 

[Oddball]

^the epitome of lecturing someone.

The epitome of telling a busybody to mind his own goddamn business....Which is advice you'd be best advised to take.

I don't need some old angry assed partisan who peruses message-boards to shout his disturbed bullshit, daily, to tell me how to behave. Spanks, slappy.

If do-gooding busybodies like you would mind your own goddamn business, there'd probably be a lot fewer angry people in the world.

Yet more of the unintended consequences you do-gooding busybodies remain blissfully oblivious to.

 

[boedicca]

Man, was DeTocqueville ever prescient!

You're displaying exactly the same kind of totalitarian mindset that he warned about more than 200 years ago.

Good job, tovarich.

It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.

Nice strawman.

And what a waste of straw.

Why is he building Straw Men with it instead of turning it into ethanol?

 

[boedicca]

Are you trying to imply that doing an Abortion does not use any resources?

Secondly you have absolutely missed the entire point didn’t you? Rand Paul’s point was you're pro choice when it comes to something as controversial as abortion (undeniably) but drop the hammer on a light bulb or toilet when in fact the "replacement" offered is no more efficient.

Light bulbs that produce so much less light that people add more lamps… Toilets that don’t flush correctly so you flush 2-3 times… I mean, this is not rocket science for a topic.

I understand and agree that the replacements should be more efficient otherwise, what's the point? But I disagree that someone is coming and taking your "Freedom to Pollute" when there's Laws designed to conserve the very Earth we live on.

I'm not sure what non-renewable resources Abortion uses, either....but you have to admit, he's not only pointing out Environmentalists' hypocrisy by drawing the comparison..........that is........unless he *doesn't* want to tell Women what to do.

Right, and the problem is the replacement is not better, so what's the point of her job, why do we pay them money to do nothing?

Rand Paul does not want to tell someone they can't have an abortion necessarily, he does not want Government paying for it. While I'm pro choice I can see and agree with that concept as plain as day...

Pretending that a Republican wants the option to pollute more is a ugly and false argument... The Democrats have been in charge and done NOTHING to change pollution, because it's about how individual people choose to live their lives that will make the difference.

In the end a hybrid does not pollute any less than most other cars. The new electric cars are near 100% oil dependent as the oil is now converted to electricity is all. We have not moved an inch, if anything we are slowly going backwards.

Good post. I'll also add that the most environmentally friendly vehicle is one that has already been manufactured, regardless of fuel economy. A great deal of the total lifetime energy consumption of a car is used during the manufacturing (including raw materials) and distribution processes. Prematurely trashing cars just to promote politically correct new models is a huge waste of energy - yet, the eco-freaks supported cash for clunkers.

 

[boedicca]

Did he call it, or what?

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, Volume II (1840); Book Four, Chapter VI

QFT.

He was a prescient genius.

 

[mnbasketball]

Man, was DeTocqueville ever prescient!

You're displaying exactly the same kind of totalitarian mindset that he warned about more than 200 years ago.

Good job, tovarich.

It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.

There is no way that humans can destroy earth. It will recycle itself through ocean current patterns, matter and particulate breakdown, chemical interactions, subduction, geological processes.

No it is the arrogance of fringe enviro lovers who think, through bad science, that we could even come minutely close to destroying earth. It's laughable.

I'm glad you want to make that wager with your family and theirs to come but i don't think so myself. If you do something to the environment from your actions that creates a harm to my life, I WANT YOU TO STOP and I don't give a shit what you call it, your free choice should not do me harm, nor should I have to take the chance that 40 years from now that it may not be as bad as people say, so lets just wait and see.

And destroying some peoples lifes because you want free will may not ruin the world but it sure the hell would have a direct harm to those who get in your way.

 

[boedicca]

Did he call it, or what?

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, Volume II (1840); Book Four, Chapter VI

You're an idiot to assume the paragraph is necessarily true simply because you see people agreeing with Government acts.....but then..........you'd have to totally ignore every time that they disagree which blows the tripe pretty clean out of the water.

There's this other stuff in life for thinking people: it's called gray area.

You're a blind idiot for not recognizing the truth when it is staring you in the face.

 

[boedicca]

You're an idiot to assume the paragraph is necessarily true simply because you see people agreeing with Government acts.....but then..........you'd have to totally ignore every time that they disagree which blows the tripe pretty clean out of the water.

There's this other stuff in life for thinking people: it's called gray area.

You might be able to think gray. Can you act gray ?
Some choices are clearly black or white. You do or you don't.
Pretending that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing is irrational.

And clearly to me, I make my choices based on what I think, not on how others tell me to think.

No you don't. You're a pretty typical example of a Lockstep Liberal.

 

[boedicca]

You think that people will be good enough people to choose, all on their own, to not adversely effect others and the planet, while simultaneously not thinking they're good enough to be representatives of Society via Government.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that EVERY WAY FORWARD, is flawed.

If you don't believe that humans will grow to realize what is best for them is also best for the environment, your only other choice is to enslave them for stupidity.

Laws aren't enslavement, in my opinion.

So if a government passes a law making slavery legal, that's not enslavement?

Wow.

 

[Avorysuds]

I didn't misquote him.

You misquote by not quoting correctly or quoting in tiny bits taken out of any context that matters, it's discussing to try and debate with someone working on that level.

You support a program that has no net benefit when it comes to making "less pollution" because it allows you a moral higher ground. In so you attack someone who points out the direct waste of that program and that if "better" is to happen we can't keep investing in a failed policy.

YOU are part of the problem as you are clearly not wanting to be part of the solution. You believe you are better than while you pollute and consume on the same level of the people you condemn. While "your way" fails you are busy attacking any other way of doing things, it gets old, real fucking old.

You're saying that, in other words......if the program was beneficial you'd support such laws?

That sounds like what you're saying to me.

Rand isn't saying that. He's saying stay out of my house and let me choose for myself, while ALSO saying the program doesn't even work.

If the program worked then we wouldn't need the constitution. But because the program does not wort it sets a standard of failing being ok... Lets get past that.

 

[rightwinger]

Man, was DeTocqueville ever prescient!

You're displaying exactly the same kind of totalitarian mindset that he warned about more than 200 years ago.

Good job, tovarich.

It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.

There is no way that humans can destroy earth. It will recycle itself through ocean current patterns, matter and particulate breakdown, chemical interactions, subduction, geological processes.

No it is the arrogance of fringe enviro lovers who think, through bad science, that we could even come minutely close to destroying earth. It's laughable.

You are correct

There is no way for humans to destroy the earth. The earth is one tough, sonofabitch piece of rock that will be here forever.

However, the resources that we rely on to sustain our existence on that piece of rock are up for grabs

 

[mnbasketball]

In an earlier post I put the article that I told people they should read.

Here's a small part of what it says.

Now let’s talk pollution. A huge advantage of PHEV and BEV cars is that their energy can come from renewable sources, such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar. Even if the energy source is fossil fuel, installing state-of-the-art emission controls on a few big power plants is way easier than installing ’em on hundreds of millions of motor vehicles. What’s more, since many electric plants use natural gas, CO2 emissions from power generation are a modest 1.27 pounds of CO2 per kWh — 1.9 pounds per productive kWh once we account for losses during battery charging and so on. Compare that to gasoline, which produces the equivalent of 3.9 pounds of CO2 per productive kWh.

I think that waste and pollution are two things that will make our country and world much worse off. Your choices if allowed will over the long run cause the rest of us a problem. To solve a problem is not the same as ignoring it and hope everything will be OK based on choice.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.

There is no way that humans can destroy earth. It will recycle itself through ocean current patterns, matter and particulate breakdown, chemical interactions, subduction, geological processes.

No it is the arrogance of fringe enviro lovers who think, through bad science, that we could even come minutely close to destroying earth. It's laughable.

I'm glad you want to make that wager with your family and theirs to come but i don't think so myself. If you do something to the environment from your actions that creates a harm to my life, I WANT YOU TO STOP and I don't give a shit what you call it, your free choice should not do me harm, nor should I have to take the chance that 40 years from now that it may not be as bad as people say, so lets just wait and see.

And destroying some peoples lifes because you want free will may not ruin the world but it sure the hell would have a direct harm to those who get in your way.

What would that consist of? Keep in mind that I'm a geologist/mining/oil/water, and am in favor of drilling, excavating, digging, sucking, blasting, dredging, to name a few. All of these provide us with a better life. I implore you to look around and ask yourself how the sun and wind are benefitting your lot versus using the natural resources provided in the earth. Most of all, I am huge into conservation and don't need some government law, statute, ordinance, or nanny dolt to tell me how to do it.

 

[dilloduck]

It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.

There is no way that humans can destroy earth. It will recycle itself through ocean current patterns, matter and particulate breakdown, chemical interactions, subduction, geological processes.

No it is the arrogance of fringe enviro lovers who think, through bad science, that we could even come minutely close to destroying earth. It's laughable.

You are correct

There is no way for humans to destroy the earth. The earth is one tough, sonofabitch piece of rock that will be here forever.

However, the resources that we rely on to sustain our existence on that piece of rock are up for grabs

Gotcha---so lets be honest and say "save me" instead of "save the earth".
Resources have always been and will always be up for grabs. Do you need more help than others to get the share of resources that you need?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've got the money...
I can use as many resources as I please

Damn Libruls....mind your own business

You mean as many as I can PAY for. If I want to use a light bulb that costs a penny a day more to run than a CFL I will PAY for that extra electricity and the fucking government will tax that extra penny.

No one is getting anything free here.

Maybe what you really want is the fucking government to confiscate all resources and parse them out to us.

 

[mnbasketball]

If we had no pollution would we be better off? If we didn't have to use up what the earth provides to us would we not be better off?

To pollute is not an entitlement is it?

 

[Oddball]

If we had no pollution would we be better off? If we didn't have to use what the earth provides to us would we not be better off?

To pollute is not an entitlement is it?

A bumper crop of strawmen today!