In response to:

Obama's Rhetoric

canetoad Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 4:25 AM
Well Amy, time to open your mind to the fact that the USFS has readily admitted past mistakes and is moving forward with best possible science brought to them by scientists and ecologists with boots on the ground. No arguing with the fact that short term we need to rely on fossil fuels, but critically we need to support emerging technologies. A carbon levy on fossil fuels to account for its external costs is a start and would go a long way to making renewables competitive. Unfortunately we have a Congress owned and controlled by the fossil fuel industry and it's propaganda machine is mightily opposed to any policy that could affect their bottom line. Write your congressman and indicate you support clean energy. People power matters.
pascagoulapappy Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 10:48 AM
People power matters, Yeh, right. So do utility bills.
Chestertonfan Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 7:32 AM
Cane toad, you environmental longing for a time when almost no one lived here is sentimental goop that has no relevance to Dr Sowell's article. If you want to have seen real raping of the environment, you should have seen communist Europe. With nothing and no one holding them back, the communist elites plundered and provisioned the environment in a shocking manner.
And by the way, it took to conservative leaders, Reagan and Mulroney, to clean up the Great Lakes and acid rain. Grow up.
wildbronco Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 7:23 AM
Let me see you load a semi truck and using Solar Power move that load all the way across country to its destination. You wont even get it away from the loading dock. What a moran, typical liberal.
inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 7:23 AM
"A carbon levy on fossil fuels to account for its external costs..."

Which external costs do you mean? Carbon dioxide?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! OMFG!!!

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Things grow better when they get more of it. If you want to start paying for externalities, WE owe THEM for the extra plant growth they've produced.

What you mean, actually, is a tax to make them dance to whatever tune you progressive tyrants want them to dance to. Sorry, we don't do that here in America.
inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 7:19 AM
Who is this "we," and what do you mean "support?"

Are you not aware that American for-profit enterprises have been investigating new technologies for producing electricity for decades? Do you imagine that companies like Westinghouse, Babcock/Wilcox, Dow Chemical, or Con Ed do not see the potential for new technologies? Do you imagine that oil companies want to become buggy whip manufacturers as the feedstock for their products dwindles?

Here's a clue, Sherlock: the aggressive businessmen in the Unites States, who drive the economy, do not need YOU in order to know that an opportunity exists.

The reason alternatives are not widely used is that they are simply not ready for market. Again, they do not need YOU to tell them they're ready.
stickler4details Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 5:26 AM
My Hemi doesn't run on sunshine. I like fossil fuels. If you want to support emerging tech, then do so. WWhy must there be a tax to compel
stickler4details Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 5:27 AM
oops. silly keyboard. Why must there be a tax to compel me to do so?
Mag14 Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 4:33 AM
Why are you arguing with Amy? She's gone to bed already.
Robert 206 Wrote: Jul 19, 2012 4:31 AM
Why don't you take your "fossil fuels" and shove them up where the sun don't shine! This column is about the Democrats' threat to our freedoms led by the Marxist, Barack Obama. Get out of the woods and get on topic!
Barack Obama's great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, "if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." As an example, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Let's stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent...