Delusional Liberals on Iraq
This is what really amazes me about liberals in regards to oil and Iraq! As is well known Iraq is sitting on a pretty large reserve of oil! We are there primarily to secure our oil reserves in the middle east and promote stability in the region as to prevent another (ecological disaster such as when Saddam blew up the oil wells) and to make sure we in fact have a nice steady supply of oil (with stable pricing) in the future. By democratizing Iraq we help to stabilize oil pricing and help give us a littleleverge over the Saudis by influencing Iraqi oil reserves on the oil market!
George Bush realized how dangerous the situation was and took the most logical action by removing Saddam, stabilizing the region which was a win win situation not only for the security of our nation (no terrorism in America since 9/11) but creating a stabilizing effect in the long term for oil prices! Iraq was the perfect entry point into the middle east to accomplish multiple goals! The fact is the only reason the liberals hate him so much is they know this fact as well as the conservatives do! Libs only hate Bush because they know he’s right and history will prove him right and them wrong! what makes you laugh is you would think liberals did not use gasoline, home heating fuel, or plastic! The fact is and I will bet the farm on it is if a liberal is voted into theWhitehouse they will come up with some lame excuse to not remove the troops in Iraq! They will just lie to the American people though campaign promises to bring back our troops while understanding all alone Bush did the right thing! The libs try to pretend they don’t use oil! If the libs really and truly cared about global warming we would have a 100 percent tax credit on solar and alternative energy systems in this country!
Gore’s inconvenient truth is that he and his administration did nothing to promote solar energy though tax credits the entire time he was in office! A solar powered America would not only be pollution free but it would also be energy independent with no government control over the people via the control and flow of energy! And we know the libs need central control over everything! the point is they pedal pure BS while there agenda is the same as the conservatives! Moral of the story is the libs are as attached to the oilteet as the conservatives are because we are on an oil economy until things change and they haven’t done anything for real to change that fact!
Zach Says: November 14th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Bravo…Brilliant…i must say thank you. The liberals dont have the balls to come out to America and say they us oil as much or more than the republicans…Al Gore for instance has a gulfstream five…that burns 1200lbs of jet fuel per hour and emits more co2 than 5 city buses…yet he blames us for destroying “his” environment….Hey al, Why dont you use a research tool that you “invented” to find out how you are killing the planet and not us republicans.
You are a true american. God Bless and thank you for your comment
nutslikebush Says: November 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Oops. P54 and Zach, I hate to defend Clinton and Gore but you are factually wrong in this post. They did propose huge tax credits for energy efficient homes and cars. If you go back and look at their actual proposals they make sense now. But congress didn’t pass any of them, unfortunately.
Clinton Climate Change Technology Initiative:
$4.0 Billion in Tax Incentives
“The President (Clinton) is proposing a new $4.0 billion package in tax incentives over five years to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by spurring the purchase of energy efficient products and the use of renewable energy.
HOMES AND BUILDINGS
* Tax credit to consumers who purchase new energy efficient homes. To encourage the purchase of new energy efficient homes, consumers would receive a tax credit of $1,000 for homes purchased from 2001-2003 that use at least 30 percent less energy than the standard under the 1998 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and a credit of $2,000 for homes purchased from 2001-2005 that use at least 50 percent less energy than the IECC standard.
* Tax credit for energy efficient equipment in new and existing homes or buildings. This credit will encourage the purchase of electric heat pump water heaters, natural gas heat pumps and fuel cells. The credit would apply to both residential and commercial equipment. The credit would be 20 percent of the cost of the investment, subject to a cap, for equipment purchased from 2001-2004.
* Tax credit for solar energy systems. A 15 percent tax credit will encourage the purchase by consumers and businesses of solar energy systems. The maximum credit would be $2,000 for rooftop photovoltaic systems placed in service from 2001-2007 and $1,000 for solar water heating systems placed in service from 2001-2005.
VEHICLES
* Tax credits for electric, fuel cell, and qualified hybrid vehicles. Cars and light trucks (including minivans, sport utilities, and pickups) currently account for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Tax credits for electric, fuel cell, and hybrid vehicles will help to move advanced technologies from the laboratory to the highway. These technologies can significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
–Extend the current tax credit for electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. Under current law, a 10 percent credit, up to $4,000, is provided for the cost of qualified electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. The credit begins to phase down in 2002 and phases out in 2005. The President’s proposal would extend the tax credit at its $4,000 maximum level through 2006.
–Tax credits for hybrid vehicles. The credit — available for all qualifying vehicles, including cars, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks — would range from $500 to $3,000 for purchases of a qualified hybrid vehicle from 2003 through 2006, depending upon the vehicle’s design performance.
CLEAN ENERGY
* Tax credit for electricity produced from wind. Current law encourages the production of electricity from wind, which emits no greenhouse gases, through a tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (adjusted for inflation after 1992). The current tax credit covers facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002. The President proposes a 2.5-year extension of this tax credit.
* Tax credits for electricity produced from biomass. Biomass refers to trees, crops and agricultural wastes used to produce power, fuels or chemicals. This package of credits would:
–Extend current “closed-loop” biomass credit. This proposal extends for 2.5 years the current 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit (adjusted for inflation after 1992), which covers facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002.
–Provide credits for “open loop” biomass facilities. This proposal expands the definition of biomass eligible for the 1.5 cent tax credit to include certain forest-related resources and agricultural and other sources for facilities placed in service from 2001 through 2005, and provides a 1.0 cent credit for electricity produced from 2001 through 2003 from facilities placed in service prior to January 1, 2001.
— Provide a credit for cofiring biomass and coal. This proposal adds a 0.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced by cofiring biomass in coal plants from 2001 through 2005.
— Provide credit for methane from landfills. This proposal adds a 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour credit for electricity produced from landfills not subject to EPA’s 1996 New Source Performance Standards/Emissions Guidelines (NSPS/EG) and 1.0 cent per kilowatt hour for landfills subject to NSPS/EG. Qualified facilities would be facilities placed in service after December 31, 2000 and before January 1, 2006.
INDUSTRY
* 15-year recovery period for distributed power property. The development of distributed power technologies has made it possible to generate electricity locally at dispersed industrial, commercial, and residential locations. Such technologies can be more energy efficient and generate fewer greenhouse gases than conventional generation methods. This proposal would simplify and rationalize the current depreciation system by assigning a single 15-year recovery period to distributed power property.
nutslikebush Says: November 17th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I have come to believe that conservatives create liberals and liberals create conservatives. Without one, the other would disappear. I was just reading Edgar Allen Poe’s story William Wilson and it reminded me of all adversaries and their need for each other. The last few sentences of the story are fantastic.
“You have conquered, and I yield. Yet, henceforward art thou also dead — dead to the World, to Heaven and to Hope! In me didst thou exist — and, in my death, see by this image, which is thine own, how utterly thou hast murdered thyself.”
What we do to our enemy, we do to ourselves.
Buck Evinger Says: November 19th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Nuts,
Regarding your previous post about Clinton’s energy related tax credits, why weren’t they passed by congress? I haven’t checked, but how many of these initiatives were tacked on to other bills that had nothing to do with energy or conservation? Attaching unrelated amendments to bills is pure pork politics that would stop the president had the line item veto. Talk about checks and balances.
Also, how many of them were part of a tax increase package sent before congress? Isn’t it just so liberal to take someones hard earned money away from them and then promise to give it back if they change their behaviour?That is exactly what these kinds of tax incentives do.
Do you think it would be possible to give incentives or even funding to corporations and businesses to develop these kinds of alternative energy ideas without it being labeled as Republican pandering to big corporations?
You are so right about doing to ourselves, what we do to our enemies and in the constant bickering that is Washington, meaningful progress on energy related issues is impossible…..but out here in the real world, if we can just keep government off our back and out of our pockets….meaningful progress can be made by people who simply…..care.
Jordan Says: November 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Nutslikebush, you seem to know a lot. But in his defense, Zach was simply stating that Al Gore is a hypocrite. That you can’t deny.
nutslikebush Says: November 20th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Jordan,
I don’t know if Gore is any more of a hypocrite than anyone else. Inspired by Buck, I am in a mood to try to start respecting our public servants, former and present, and to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am making a solemn effort to understand Bush and give him and his administration the benefit of the doubt on all of the things that I have been suspicious about. I want to wipe my mind clean of any biases that may cloud my understanding and see if I can comprehend the world from their perspective. Why not?
On a related note; I heard a podcast today (All In the Mind - an Australian Broadcast Company show) about the “political brain” and the most interesting thing I learned is that when people listen to politicians speak, we treat contradictions in their positions differently depending on whether we already like them or not. If we don’t like them we are highly sensitive to contradictory statements and spend a lot of time thinking them through (and a region of the brain called the cingulate cortex is activated, which is involved in complex reasoning). But if we like the politician already, when they make contradictory statements our striatum is activated, the same area of the brain that is activated when we eat chocolate, consume alcohol, or do cocaine. But we spend little cognitive energy analyzing the contradictions of our favorite candidates. That was true for liberals and conservatives alike. The other interesting point was that when our favorite candidates perform poorly in a debate, it makes us favor them even more! I am starting to believe that political debate is really just a waste of time for those of us who want to be persuaded to change our minds. We just tune in to be fed whatever candy our candidates throw at our insatiable, partisan sweet tooth and anything our opponents say will taste bitter, no matter what they say.
Zach Says: November 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 am
Nuts,
He is a hypocrite he makes a movie about how we are destroying the ozone and we need to stop. The one person who you think would be following that little piece of advice is himself..and he does not. he is one of the main contributors to the problem. thus…..HYPOCRITE!!!!
Thank you Jordan.
nutslikebush Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 am
Who cares who is a hypocrite? It doesn’t matter who is right, it matter what is right. The particular individuals who are involved in the debates about climate change are irrelevant. If the data support a particular view, one should favor that view even if you don’t like the people who are the proponents of that view. Attacking people is a fool’s game, I have learned. We need to focus on the data and reaching the best explanations and solutions, even when they lead us to conclusions we wish were not true. I think everyone wishes that global warming wasn’t really happening, especially the scientists who study it. They are in the horrible position of having to defend a conclusion that they wish wasn’t the best explanation of the data. It is a thankless job in the first place and those scientists bust their asses to get the data necessary to evaluate the situation, work for a fraction of the pay that they could receive in private industry, and just get abused by the general public for doing excellent work.
Zach Says: November 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am
ohh the poor scientists…boo-effing-hoo.
nutslikebush Says: November 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
your logic is compelling, Zach.