Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Republicans & Environment

Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 7:39:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Personally, I feel that Republicans and/or people that believe primarily in conservative ideology, would be better off if they were more environmental.
It seems to me that Republicans and/or conservatives that are more likely to be environmentally friendly, have a higher chance of being elected more than if they weren't environmentally friendly.

(And by environmental I mean recycling and planting trees etc., not anything related to global warming since there is an ongoing debate if it is human caused or not)

What do you guys think? I personally believe the Republican party would be far better off, if they are environmental, and possibly get more independents on their side.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 8:14:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 7:39:31 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Personally, I feel that Republicans and/or people that believe primarily in conservative ideology, would be better off if they were more environmental.:

National parks for conservation were started by a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was started by a Republican, President Nixon. The charge that Republicans want to rape Mother Earth seems to be a leftist vagary.

It seems to me that Republicans and/or conservatives that are more likely to be environmentally friendly, have a higher chance of being elected more than if they weren't environmentally friendly.:

One has to define the terms. If by "environmentally friendly" you mean living in mud huts then, no, Republicans are not. It's kind of an ambiguous term.

(And by environmental I mean recycling and planting trees etc., not anything related to global warming since there is an ongoing debate if it is human caused or not):

Recycling is bullsh*t, and all loggers plant more than they reap. Why wouldn't they?

What do you guys think? I personally believe the Republican party would be far better off, if they are environmental, and possibly get more independents on their side.:

Give specifics on what should be done that Republicans supposedly don't do. But maybe you think the video clip is what we all should be doing.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 9:17:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ted Nugent does more for good for the environment than any liberal i've ever seen.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 12:12:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 8:14:50 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/15/2011 7:39:31 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
Personally, I feel that Republicans and/or people that believe primarily in conservative ideology, would be better off if they were more environmental.:

National parks for conservation were started by a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was started by a Republican, President Nixon. The charge that Republicans want to rape Mother Earth seems to be a leftist vagary.

Yes and then Reagan came along and established neoconservatism, which has dominated the party ever since. Are you that daft to want to compare each party's record on the environment in the last 30 years?

It seems to me that Republicans and/or conservatives that are more likely to be environmentally friendly, have a higher chance of being elected more than if they weren't environmentally friendly.:

One has to define the terms. If by "environmentally friendly" you mean living in mud huts then, no, Republicans are not. It's kind of an ambiguous term.

Yeah when you frame it that badly then just about any issue becomes ambiguous. You wouldn't want to discuss regulations with me, now would you?

(And by environmental I mean recycling and planting trees etc., not anything related to global warming since there is an ongoing debate if it is human caused or not):

Recycling is bullsh*t, and all loggers plant more than they reap. Why wouldn't they?

Recycling is bullsh*t only because it is not the prime way to achieve efficiency - reducing is. You wouldn't know anything about that because you're as excited to learn about reducing, reusing, and recycling as I am about the economic subtleties of libertarian economics. You only recycle things that you cannot reduce or reuse, and there are other subordinate options available for the substances that do not work for any of these three. Recycling is meant for very specific materials and its benefit will only improve as resources become more scarce.

What do you guys think? I personally believe the Republican party would be far better off, if they are environmental, and possibly get more independents on their side.:

Give specifics on what should be done that Republicans supposedly don't do. But maybe you think the video clip is what we all should be doing.

Well they could start by opening some science books instead of trying to write them.
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 12:20:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
neoconservatism
Whatever you think that word means Rob, it's probably different from what it actually means.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 3:48:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 8:14:50 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

National parks for conservation were started by a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was started by a Republican, President Nixon. The charge that Republicans want to rape Mother Earth seems to be a leftist vagary.

Back when Teddy was president, the Republican party was basically the Liberal party; Wilson was the first Progressive Democrat. Also, Nixon was VERY Liberal, and nobody on the right held much love for him. I don't even know why he ran as a Republican...

Also, that video is hilarious. I hope people don't view all environmentalists that way, though.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Its actually pretty specific. Ever listened to Hannity? I guess he'd call it just plain conservative, but whatever... don't let Ron Paul catch him saying that!
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 10:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Its actually pretty specific

I didn't say it wasn't.

Now, say what you think it specifically means. :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 10:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Its actually pretty specific

I didn't say it wasn't.

Now, say what you think it specifically means. :P

http://www.humanevents.com...

By the way Ragnar, I heard a documentary about Ayn Rand on NPR on the way home tonight. Her biographer, Anne C. Heller, said "she hated libertarians." Her reasoning wasn't exact but it had to do with how she saw them as thieves of her ideology, because they extracted her economic beliefs without also taking her metaphysical/epistemological viewpoints as well (which she felt were intricately intertwined). Unfortunately this is all that was said and it doesn't appear to be uploaded to NPR.org yet.
kfc
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 11:28:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 11:25:30 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Its actually pretty specific

I didn't say it wasn't.

Now, say what you think it specifically means. :P

http://www.humanevents.com...

By the way Ragnar, I heard a documentary about Ayn Rand on NPR on the way home tonight. Her biographer, Anne C. Heller, said "she hated libertarians." Her reasoning wasn't exact but it had to do with how she saw them as thieves of her ideology, because they extracted her economic beliefs without also taking her metaphysical/epistemological viewpoints as well (which she felt were intricately intertwined). Unfortunately this is all that was said and it doesn't appear to be uploaded to NPR.org yet.

I also think it's because she saw all libertarians as anarchists, and hated anarchism.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2011 12:34:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 11:28:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/15/2011 11:25:30 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Its actually pretty specific

I didn't say it wasn't.

Now, say what you think it specifically means. :P


http://www.humanevents.com...

Im much too tired to put myself in the shoes of a religious authoritarian whackjob so I am just gonna throw this one out there.

1. God's Law Governs Nations as Well as Men.

Hey, it works for them, it might as well work for you too.

2. Life Is the First God-Given Right

Nothing to do with abortion, they just want to make that point clear in case it comes up later when some liberal tries justifying killing people for their socialist agenda.

3. Marriage and Family Come Before the State and Deserve Its Protection

Nothing to do with homosexuals or anything, just want to get that out there in case someone tries destroying our concept of marriage. Damn liberals hate marriage.

4. Freedom of Conscience is the Soul of Liberty

I can't even make one up for this sh*t.

5. Private Property is the Servant of Freedom

property=freedom. If that's the case then PUT ME IN JAIL AND THROW AWAY THE KEYS BABAY because I'll be state property and guaranteed absolute freedom! Oh they'll be so pissed off when they realize I've tricked them!

6. Government Dependency is the Seed of Tyranny

(it's actually the other way around)

7. The Constitution Means What It Says

They're only referring to the part about blacks.

8. Taxes Are Justified Only to Fund Necessary Government Spending

That ought to outsmart Obama.

9. National Defense Is Just That

"advancing freedom in the world is good in itself"

10. We Should Strive to Give Our Children a Better Country

I'm having a hard time guessing in what way that is meant but I'm sure they believe it!

By the way Ragnar, I heard a documentary about Ayn Rand on NPR on the way home tonight. Her biographer, Anne C. Heller, said "she hated libertarians." Her reasoning wasn't exact but it had to do with how she saw them as thieves of her ideology, because they extracted her economic beliefs without also taking her metaphysical/epistemological viewpoints as well (which she felt were intricately intertwined). Unfortunately this is all that was said and it doesn't appear to be uploaded to NPR.org yet.

I also think it's because she saw all libertarians as anarchists, and hated anarchism.

It was also saying she hated her supporters more than she hated her critics, and wasn't a big fan of people in general. This is the first I've ever heard of her in any depth, and it seems to me like she was just a vehemont anti-socialist because of her initial conditions as a child in Russia.
kfc
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 8:49:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes and then Reagan came along and established neoconservatism, which has dominated the party ever since. Are you that daft to want to compare each party's record on the environment in the last 30 years?:

Reagan spearheaded the Montreal Protocol (a precursor to the Kyoto Protocol) and Bush extended the scope of the Antiquities Act, began by Theodore Roosevelt. I think it is a misnomer that Republicans aren't "green-friendly," and a lot of it is under reported.

Yeah when you frame it that badly then just about any issue becomes ambiguous. You wouldn't want to discuss regulations with me, now would you?:

I'll discuss anything with you.

Recycling is bullsh*t only because it is not the prime way to achieve efficiency - reducing is.:

No, recycling is bullsh*t because it is predicated on gross exaggerations and it's a racket designed to line the pockets of people in the recycling business on the lie that we're all bad people if we don't recycle. One would think that would go against your ethical stance, but you probably just aren't aware of it.

The only known case of successful recycling is the recycling of aluminum cans. Beyond that it is inefficient and wastes more energy than just starting anew.

You wouldn't know anything about that because you're as excited to learn about reducing, reusing, and recycling as I am about the economic subtleties of libertarian economics.:

Ah, yes, just denigrate me instead of presenting reasoned argumentation.

So explain what you'd like to reduce.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 8:57:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

By the way Ragnar, I heard a documentary about Ayn Rand on NPR on the way home tonight. Her biographer, Anne C. Heller, said "she hated libertarians.":

That's odd...

http://thebrowser.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2011 3:26:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/15/2011 11:25:30 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2011 10:02:17 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Its actually pretty specific

I didn't say it wasn't.

Now, say what you think it specifically means. :P

http://www.humanevents.com...

Wrong. That's an inconsistent blend of neoclassical conservatism (i.e. market-favoring) and the religious right. A neoconservative is a "liberal who has been mugged." The original neoconservatives were all either New Dealers or Trotzkyites until they were attracted by tough stances on crime and aggressive foreign policy specifically for the purpose of "spreading democracy." They maintained a heavy skepticism of laissez faire-- at best, they are economically moderate. A neoconservative is frequently an atheist, although they generally don't believe it a good idea to preach atheism.


By the way Ragnar, I heard a documentary about Ayn Rand on NPR on the way home tonight. Her biographer, Anne C. Heller, said "she hated libertarians."
She hated people she knew who called themselves libertarians, yes. Mainly because "She thought it sounded like a made-up word" (those were her words to Nathaniel Branden apparently, I see no reason he'd lie about that) and she didn't really kinow what it meant anyway :P. She thought of it as a competing philosophy instead of the political coalition it is.

None of this changes the fact that she was, by definition, a libertarian.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.