JUST SAY NO TO SOCIALISM
" [He's] Better than Barack Obama"
- Carol Calabresa/The Sierra Club, 2008
" The strength of our campaign remains the Democrats"
- Mark Kirk, 2008
Posted on 06/29/2009 5:36:24 PM PDT by WhiteCastle
Climate Change: A switch of four Republican votes would have defeated Waxman-Markey, the Democrats' global warming legislation. But like the Clinton Btu tax, the bill could die in the Senate and turn the House over to the GOP. What were these RINOs thinking? The GOP is supposed to be the party of low taxes and free markets. Rep. Mike Castle, one of the eight offered an explanation right off of President Obama's teleprompter...Illinois Republican Mark Kirk, who has senatorial ambitions to replace the choice of impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Sen. Roland Burris, demonstrates why GOP fortunes in the Land of Lincoln have crashed in recent years.He voted for a bill Heritage estimates would cost his district an average loss of $805 million in GSP from 2012 to 2035, an average loss of personal income of $286 million, and an average loss of 2,931 nonfarm jobs.The others in the GOP gang of eight are Mary Bono Mack of California, Leonard Lance of New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Christopher Smith of New Jersey, John McHugh of New York and Dave Reichert of Washington. All have a lot of 'splaining to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
OTOH. we'll probably see fewer mosquito(e)s -- last year I saw a dozen. Horrible year.
As much as I despise the RINO’s this would have passed with no RINO support ,, the RATS that voted against it simply would have been ordered to vote for it.
Nuclear doesn’t release carbon dioxide, is it possible that the utilities will turn to Nuclear instead of the “so called” green technologies that are being hyped by the Zero admin.
...like the Clinton Btu tax, the bill could die in the Senate and turn the House over to the GOP.
Yeah but the Dems would have owned the mofo. No Republican should vote for any Democrat garbage legislation. No conservative will support them and no liberals aren’t going to support them either despite the ads run by the leftist kooks.
I have to be careful where I tread while talking about Mark Kirk as my cousin is going to run against him for his seat.
Seriously, if that namby-pamby mealy-mouthed clod thinks he has a chance in hell of winning the senate seat, I think he should go for it. Spend all of his money, alienate the rest of the taxpayers who might have voted for him before all this... The voters he's trying to attract will always vote for the real democrat in the general anyway.
I knew, in 2005, that Rep. Kirk is more liberal than many Democrats. He’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-spending increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. In the 2006 primary, I ran against him, as a write-in candidate, and the Daily Herald said that I got 144 votes, although I didn’t spend any money, on the campaign.
Kirk should defect to the DemospLabRat party. Now!
Not ONE MORE PENNY to the GOP until they get their house in order.
Yes and that would have been much better for the Republican traitors and their party.
I emailed Rep. Kirk, four times, and I asked why he’s a Republican, although he’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-spending increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. I didn’t get a response, so I emailed four of his aides, Lester Munson, Lisa Radogno, Patrick Magnuson, and Eric Elk, and I asked them why he’s a Republican. None of them responded. Kirk should become a Democrat or become conservative.
What percentage of the earth's atmosphere is composed of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?
Any ideas?
Curious? (scroll down)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer = 0.038%.
That's not a misprint. The Earth's atmosphere is composed of 78.08% Nitrogen, 20.95% Oxygen, 0-4% water vapor, depending on location, less than 1% Argon, and 0.038% carbon dioxide.
That's not all, however. Here's another question for you: What percentage of carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere as a product of man-made activity?
I won't make you scroll this time:
A: Approximately 3.0%.
So, in essence, what we are talking about with "Cap and Trade" is a proposal that will cost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, permanently reducing our standard of living and restricting personal freedom....
in order to reduce a gas whose man-caused component represents 0.00114% of the atmosphere.
Oh, by the way: the goal is to reduce man-made CO2 by a whopping 0.05% - so, in sum:
We're about to destroy the American economy and our standard of living in order to affect 0.00000057% of the atmosphere.
Sounds like a really smart plan, huh?
Are we out of our minds?
Nothing in the Waxman bill which allows Nuclear, coal, natural gas useage. Sorry, the dictators have spoken.
For the renewable energyh part, there is a provision in Title 1, 101.610.19 that excludes nuclear from the base amount, but only if the nuclear plant went into service after this legislation. So new nuke plants are exempt, but old ones are not. Of course the catch is that Obama won't approve any new ones.
But if he did, the game would quickly become building new nuclear plants and mothballing the old ones.
For the Carbon Sequestration section, nuclear is not assessed and therefore becomes more competitive vs the fuel and coal based systems that are subject to the cap and trade system.
Like I said, Kirk should defect to the party of the DemospLabRats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.