What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[The Rabbi]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

 

[PMZ]

Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please. And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.

That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.

So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists? Really? That is your definition of extremism?

For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.

And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.

It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.

But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?

What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

 

[PMZ]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

Do overwhelmingly conservative hunters believe that denying AGW is the most expensive alternative open to the entire world, especially our country?

 

[Foxfyre]

That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.

So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists? Really? That is your definition of extremism?

For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.

And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.

It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.

But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?

What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?

The evidence is in its increasing cost and in the steadily diminishing returns to the people. The evidence is in its inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and destructiveness, and the drain on what would otherwise be a vital, thriving economy. The evidence is in the erosion of all of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices while those in high levels of government are greatly enriching themselves at our expense. The evidence is in our inability to get answers to the simplest questions because of the enormity and complexity of the bureaucracies that are controlling more and more of our lives.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

"Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."

What??

Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example. As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.

Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.

Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.

I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up . We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.

Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.

Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity? American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation? Wow! Uhmm... OK. You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up . We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.

Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.

Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity? American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation? Wow! Uhmm... OK. You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!

And you left out that conservatives drown puppies and push senior citizens in their wheelchairs off the cliff.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals dont believe in liberalism. Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right. Conservative has nothing to do with conservation. Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife. And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up . We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.

Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.

Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity? American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation? Wow! Uhmm... OK. You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!

I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.

The Most Anti-Environment House In History
15 Dec 2011

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

League Of Conservation Voters

 

[Oddball]

RFK juniorette...How droll.

Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life. Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control. They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer. There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them. And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it. But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.

I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.

 

[Bfgrn]

RFK juniorette...How droll.

Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.

Thanks for adding your usual. Hey DUDe, will you ever progress to speaking English instead of ebonics, and being able to structure paragraphs?

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

 

[The Rabbi]

It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent. They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc. The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions. If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years. Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.

The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.

I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.

The usual flaw is that libs believe that if you dont think we need intrusive gov't then you are against all gov't. It is a black and white, us vs them, mentality that marks most libs as having inferior intelligence.

Absentee owners are still owners and still have an interest in the value of their property.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .

Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.

The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.

There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment. But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.

Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home. Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.

The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government. All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage. Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.

It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.

We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.

 

[Trakar]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

"Hate Republicans?"

I've been a registered Republican for nearly 50 years, I've never experienced "hate" for my political beliefs from anyone except a few fringe extremist Republicans throughout that time.

If every conservative left America, I don't think anyone would much notice, they seem to be an isolated segment of the population that only listens to, or really interacts with, other conservatives, and if they are all gone there really wouldn't be anyone left to miss them. As for the rest of the population, it is not like the Conservative minded people in this nation have ever accomplished any great things or left any lasting positive impact upon the American society. The very nature of conservatism means that it does not inspire or develop new ideas, progress and adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic society, or engage in the big social and public policy revolutions that have pushed society forward over the last 10,000 years.

 

[Meister]

Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.

 

[Foxfyre]

Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.

I dunno Meister. We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling. And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten. And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.

 

[Meister]

Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.

I dunno Meister. We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling. And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten. And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.

You need both, Foxfyre. Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives. But, take away either one and the other runs amok. What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.

Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity? American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation? Wow! Uhmm... OK. You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!

I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.

The Most Anti-Environment House In History
15 Dec 2011

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 – 22% – were votes to undermine environmental protections.

League Of Conservation Voters

First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.