Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Don't dispute that there are costs. The question is more along the lines of understanding the trade-offs. We could shut down all coal power plants today, but do we want too? As Obama constantly talks about "taxing the rich", isn't this going to be a "tax" on every American - a regressive "tax"? I guess he can socialize the system and make sure every American has a certain portion of energy at no costs - except for the "rich" of course.
|
1) just. . .stop. . with the socialism crap. No one who's party just approved 850 billion dollars in socialism for Wall Street can whine about whether or not the other candidate has socialist programs. Especially when their party blasted Pelosi for being somehow personally responsible for the failure of the first, cheaper, socialism program that all those wishy washy republicans voted against after listening to her speech.
2) There seems to be a prevailing attitude in this country that we want pollution to go away, but we don't want to change anything about our lifestyle to do it. That's the sort of attitude I'm pretty used to hearing from six year olds. I expect better from adults.
I understand the tradeoffs. We have fucked up the environment for over 100 years. Now it's getting ready to bite us in the ass. Current studies say that if we don't drastically slash pollution in 5 to 7 years, the climate change will be irreversible. So let's see. . . $20 more per month on my electric bill, or catastrophic global environmental collapse. Not a real tough choice, really, unless you're gambling that you'll be dead before that happens, and don't give a shit about future generations. What's it gonna be?
Speaking of being dead before bad things happen. . . Let's remember that pretty much any long-reaching effects McCain's policies have are going to happen after he's dead. And Palin believes that the rapture (the end of the world) will come during her lifetime, and therefore she, too, does not have to worry about whether or not her decisions are good in the long term because according to her there IS no long term. (We know she believes this because it is a fundamental belief of her church, and anyone who wishes to oppose the idea that she believes what her church believes had best disavow this crap about Obama and the Reverend Wright, right now. I'll point out, btw, that Wright is Obama's former pastor, whom he has publicly disavowed, and Palin's church is her current church, and she has never denied its teachings.)
Do you really want two people who don't care what their decisions will cause because they won't be here to see it, in charge of this country?
Obama thinks the world will still be here in 20 years. Unlike his opponents, he knows that what he does will have an effect on things that far out, and beyond. I'm gonna side with him on matters of the environment because unlike his opponent, he actually thinks what he decides regarding it, will matter.