UPDATE: I’ll take an even dozen in a variety of sizes.
And they passed it unread.
I’m 46 years old and I have NEVER bee so disgusted in our government as I am at this moment. And that’s saying something because unlike our representatives and most of the people who vote, I’ve actually been paying attention. If the left maintains a VETO proof Majority in the next cycle then we’ll be entering the mirror image of the last 30 years of economic growth.
Are we as an electorate really THIS fucking stupid…. really? God help us all… and I’m an atheist.
What Steve D. said.
Unfortunately with the current bunch of jokers in Washington, I don’t think we’ve reached the zenith of jackassery yet.
I never thought I’d see the day when describing someone as “power mad” was a double entendre.
I can’t say I’m disgusted, though I will be as soon as this is described as an important anything since there’s just no way in hell it will neither help that much as its proponents claim nor cost as much as its detractors claim. What’s going to happen is going to happen, and really the only way to get people to reduce their energy consumption is to make it expensive. This bill fails on that account, though the market should take care of that eventually. It also hied away from meaningful (meaning: politically painful) steps that would actually do more than reduce the increase in greenhouse gases. It really won’t bankrupt any polluters, since the stuff we need (electricity, fertilizer, cornflakes, steel, whatever,) will still be made and any additional costs will be passed along. We’ll pay, so it won’t have meaningful environmental effects. It’s a Why Bother? bill.
So tell me jon, how shitty does the process have to become? How hypocritical do the principal actors in all this have to be? How much more of your money needs to be pissed away by these bozo’s? How much more of a naked power grab do they need to make? How far in do they actually have to stick it to you before you become disgusted?
Oh, and since when is it the job of the federal government to “bankrupt any polluters”. Last I checked their job was to set up the rules of trade and make sure everyone plays by them. They were never given a mandate of picking winners and losers..
and yeah I get that I’m being Utopian, but at least my head is out of my ass.
Sorry for the attitude but this shit makes me surely.
What are the chances this will die in the Senate?
@Spudskie: I figure there are two chances – Slim & Fat – and Slim just left town.
@Steve D.: I don’t even think it’s the job of the federal government to “set up the rules of trade,” and it has only a limited mandate to “make sure everyone plays by them.” My rights (and yours) existed long before the federal government; the federal government was created to help protect those rights. Otherwise, we agree completely (well, other than that atheist thing…)
How shitty does the process have to become? Really, it’s just as crappy as most of them. And it was bought and paid for in the usual ways. This kind of lobbying has gone into every tax bill, stimulus package, tax break, military procurement plan, road bill, medical plan, and so forth. And that’s why I’m just not any more disgusted than I usually am. I guess that after the first thirty times they’ve stuck it to me, this one doesn’t seem too much worse. If this is the first time you’ve been disgusted at the creation of a huge bill, then you should have seen what went on during the other two centuries and counting.
I never said it was the government’s job to bankrupt any polluters. I said it was absurd that the critics of this bill said it would bankrupt the polluter and also the entire nation. I was commenting on the “woo” (unsubstantiated beliefs brought about my wishful thinking) of those who are yelling the loudest about the bill. There is eco woo from the Left, and there is economic woo from the Right.
Also, since I’m in a correcting mood: bozos is the plural of bozo, bozo’s is a possessive, the mandate argument refers to political questions and your side did in fact get its ass kicked quite soundly, and surely you must mean “surly” in regard to your attitude although “surely” refers to certainty which is also an attitude.
The Senators from Corn have gotten ethanol exceptions written in, so this bill will pass. It may get held up for some time, but it will pass. Bank on it.
Ask not what your country can steal from you, but what you can do to restore federalist principles in your country.
you should have seen what went on during the other two centuries
“jon, if he were around to participate in the slavery debate”:
This is just not that important. Keeping people in bondage is pretty common, though you wouldn’t know it to hear the yammering of the abolitionists. Setting them “free” wouldn’t make them financially independent, though it wouldn’t destroy the South either. Frankly I’m not impressed by the arguments on either side. The Democrats’ claim that the institution is essential to their way of life is obviously cover for a routine form of economic exploitation, but Republican talk of educating the Negroes and saving their “souls” is just as obviously a front for the Bible lobby. The only way to really solve the race problem is to have government control of reproduction, and force interbreeding. That’s right, when I force myself to work past my Olympian disdain for you little people and your petty squabbling over your insignificant problems and offer you a solution that isn’t constrained by your contemptible partisanship, I suggest something that requires vastly more state control than either of the two sides of the argument.
surely you must mean “surly”
If you expect to impress anyone here by pointing out a typo, you’ve fallen prey to an unsubstantiated belief brought about my wishful thinking.
Good snark, bgates. But if you think no horsetrading shenanigans went on involving Republicans at the time of Lincoln, you are going to have to prove it with more than some ridiculous hyperbole involving my supposed position on civil rights issues of the mid-Ninteenth Century. It was well-done for mockery, but still off-the-mark considering the fact that I wouldn’t have voted for Waxman-Markey in the event I was a Congresscritter.
If I remember correctly, our slightly-sober host has referred to jon as “usually thoughtful” in the past.
Either jon’s a doppleganger, or Steve’s been slightly less sober while reading jon’s comments. I’ve seen nothing to indicate any thought whatsoever going into his blatherings.
Basically, jon, your argument boils down to this: Congress has been passing steaming piles of shit for over two hundred years. So now that they’ve passed the largest, stinkiest, foulest pile of shit ever (but you extremists are wrong about that, too), you really have no right to complain. Since you’ve never complained this vociferously before. Really. Why weren’t you willing to storm the castle when those previous stinky piles of shit were passed? And really, why should we worry about all of the costs being passed on to the consumers? No biggie.
Man, your lack of intellectual fire power is stunning. Let us know when you pass your high school home economics class. By then, you may actually have half a clue.
Well I was about to respond to jon on his witty retort and grammaticalogical corrections (yes jon that’s an intentionally made up word) but it’s already been handled nicely in my absence. NukemHill said it better than I would have anyway.
So following along on this train of thought lets just say (in deference to you jon) that yes, the system is flawed and yes we’ve all been eating shit sandwiches of various sizes and flavors for a few hundred years now. I fail to see why those of us who are sick of this “crap” are now obligated continue chowing down on the biggest buffet of it ever assembled….. much less raise children and grandchildren on this bile. Hell the cooks don’t even know what’s in this stuff.
And another thought occurs to me. It may seem like “everyone” has been doing this internet/blogging/bulletin board/message thing for what seems like forever now but the truth is that it’s still very very new and the limits of web based political agitation are still a looong way off. So instead of taking it lets see how much push back is possible.
I think a majority of Americans on both sides of the debate are….
wait for it…
sick of this shit.
If this is the first time you’ve been disgusted at the creation of a huge bill…if you think no horsetrading shenanigans went on involving Republicans at the time of Lincoln
If you’d sell those strawmen as feedstock on the biofuel market, you’d make a killing under Waxman-Markey.
I’m sure there was logrolling during the Civil War, just as I’m sure if you were around for it you’d have pointed to it to justify claiming larger issues flatly didn’t exist.
The state’s encroachment on our liberty is important, sophomoric yawning to the contrary notwithstanding. But as much a threat as Pelosi/Reid pose, the bigger danger comes from citizens who will sit back and let it happen because it’s supposedly happened before. The real enemy, as our coke-addled totalitarian-loving President’s teleprompter used to tell us, is cynicism.
Your criticism of what we all don’t like isn’t strong enough for our liking, so we hate you.
Nah. You’re not worth the energy it takes to hate someone. You’re just intellectually vacuous, and need to be called on it.
we hate you.
You think pretty highly of yourself.
The opposite of love isn’t hate it’s indifference. So let me just say… hold on a sec… sorry gotta go..
You sure go a long way to display your indifference. Cheers and all, it’s been fun.
Love the title “Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many to Achieve So Little”. It should go into history books. Hope its your own as I intend to quote you (with apologies to Churchill)!
Comments are closed.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000030