From my rather vague observations, Graham seems to be your typical cut and dried Republican. Then I read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/business/global/30davos.html

Quote :

"“Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China,” said Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who has been deeply involved in climate change issues in Congress. “Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy.”""

How do you do a 180 like that?

2/1/2010 6:05:23 PM

$$$

2/1/2010 6:27:36 PM

That's what I'm thinking. Which big donor decided L. Graham needed an education in these here Carbon Credits.

It's shit like this that has rational people moving more and more toward Independent status.

I'll relish the day bullshit like this is weeded out from "conservative" ideology.

2/1/2010 6:36:04 PM

I already lost all my respect for that slimy SOB.

Interesting nonetheless..

2/1/2010 7:44:20 PM

shit, i thought this was about heather graham

2/1/2010 9:20:59 PM

Quote :

"Which big donor decided L. Graham needed an education in these here Carbon Credits. "

This is speculation but Id say Jim Rogers, CEO Duke Energy

http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2009120902.asp

2/1/2010 9:24:08 PM

Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron.

2/3/2010 12:57:12 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/03/graham-favors-permanent-afghan-bases/

Quote :

"A U.S. Senator is calling for permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Senator Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina, said in an interview airing on CNN's Parker Spitzer on Friday night that an enduring military relationship and permanent U.S. installations in Afghanistan would benefit both countries"

12/3/2010 9:10:42 PM

China does not give a damn about green energy, they are trying to import coal from the US. L Graham is a moron

12/3/2010 10:27:50 PM

^^ I agree. Either withdraw immediately or conquer the land as a permanent US colony and take control of their natural resources to begin repayment for the war.

12/3/2010 10:30:13 PM

Quote :

"I'll relish the day bullshit like this is weeded out from "conservative" ideology."

when all the bullshit is removed little will remain

12/3/2010 10:31:54 PM

heh, touche

12/3/2010 10:36:50 PM

I was watching this video of Graham when I saw this thread, and thought for sure this is what the thread was going to be about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lMT-bXYJGU

Spitzer has a great little retort at 6:04 about his whole position, but I'd watch just a minute or two at the beginning to get an idea of just how much of an idiot Graham is on Afghanistan.

EDIT: Ok, so I'm an idiot, and only read like the first 2 posts...

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 11:28 PM. Reason : I'm an idiot]

12/3/2010 11:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron."

Quote :

"Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron."

Quote :

"Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron."

Quote :

"Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron."

Quote :

"Good, maybe more republicans will follow suit. If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron."

Quoted for truth.


God fucking damn, you Republicans are stupid as shit.

Quote :

"How do you do a 180 like that?"

The same way most of us did a 180 when we learned the truth about Santa Claus.

You stupid fucking Republicans (and other anthropocentric climate change denying idiots,) will be disowned by your grandchildren. You, and your completely irrational denial of anthropocentric climate change, will do more damage to society and to America than all the terrorists, diseases, and wars combined. You truly are fucking fools. There has NEVER been a more apt litmus test than, "Do you believe in anthropocentric climate change?" ("Yes"=correct. "Not Sure"=acceptable. "No"=fucking wrong)

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 7:47 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2010 7:41:13 AM

so, remind me again, how well all of these wonderful computer models are doing at predicting what is actually happening. Since clearly they have it all correct in your mind...

12/4/2010 5:24:31 PM

STUF idiot.

When I see you in 40 years, being kicked to death by your own grandkids, I'll start kicking with them.

You stupid fucking partisans will be the end of us.

I HATE DEMOCRATS EVEN MORE THAN YOU DO, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU!
WHY IS IT THAT I DON'T GO AROUND DENYING WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS HAPPENING? (like you do...)


(seriously, go die)

12/4/2010 5:27:37 PM

well, because some people say it's NOT happening. namely those that can look at the evidence and see that it is sorely lacking. I'm glad you are 100% convinced, that's great. Others aren't, including some incredibly accomplished climate scientists. That the system has been bought and paid for by the green lobby which has effectively shut down actual debate, research, and discussion, is not a reason to say that "everything is settled".

i mean, this is a case where one group of people is claiming that our entire climate system revolves around a trace-gas in the atmosphere. That requires a fuck-load of evidence, and it simply doesn't exist. The evidence that has been presented so far has, mostly, been suspect, and hasn't been reproducible, such as the infamous Hockey-Stick. Every day we see more and more evidence of this fraud. I predict that in 40 years, when the climate crisis you so clearly see fails to materialize, it will be me and others saying "I told you so". I just hope that you and your ilk haven't fucked us all in the meantime

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2010 5:29:45 PM

Quote :

"well, because some people say it's NOT happening"

for entirely political purposes.

(you god damn sucker)

12/4/2010 5:31:55 PM

no, NOT for political purposes. I'm surprised you can't see why greenies would want people to buy into this sham, given just how much power it would give to world governments! The biggest argument against all of this is just how politicized the entire process has become. I mean, anyone who doesn't agree has been labeled as being on-par w/ Holocaust-Deniers. That's fucking political!

12/4/2010 5:34:29 PM

haha, right.

I don't even support cap and trade...
That's not the proper role of government.

I support the privatization of the commons.
...so when a company pollutes, they're harming everyone's property.
And a proper role of government is to protect that.

You sir, are a fucking partisan joke.
How long will it be before all of you realize what's up? What will you do then?
How will you explain to your grandkids why you so fervently fought for a business's supposed right to pollute?
What will you say to them when they ask you, "Grandpa, why did you let the polar bears go extinct?"

Your grandkids will fucking hate you, and for good cause.


(go die)

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2010 5:47:19 PM

Quote :

"I support the privatization of the commons. ...so when a company pollutes, they're harming everyone's property. And a proper role of government is to protect that."

that's fine. but CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Plants thrive in it, and we fucking exhale it.

Quote :

"What will you say to them when they ask you, "Grandpa, why did you let the polar bears go extinct?""

Well, considering that the number of polar bears is increasing, I'd say I won't be worrying about that any time soon. Besides, the plight of the polar bear has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with over-hunting and encroaching on their habitat. Seriously, cut out the appeals to emotion. It makes you like an idiot.

12/4/2010 6:39:25 PM

Quote :

"but CO2 is NOT a pollutant."

...neither is water, so go stand under a dam when it breaks....

12/4/2010 7:03:16 PM

Some serious fucking hate going on in The Soap Box these days.

12/4/2010 7:12:35 PM

^^ you are the one who said we should stop companies from polluting dude. If you admit that CO2 is not pollution, then what, exactly, do you want the gov't to do? beyond that, your "water and dam" comment is borderline absurd

12/4/2010 8:02:31 PM

Quote :

"that's fine. but CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Plants thrive in it, and we fucking exhale it."

Dude, are you seriously trying to pass this off as an argument? Anything can be a pollutant if it reaches unhealthy levels.

12/4/2010 8:20:11 PM

no, not really. try again. and even still by your definition, CO2 isn't a pollutant, as levels have been far far higher in earth's history.

12/4/2010 8:48:40 PM

Quote :

""but CO2 is NOT a pollutant.""

Quote :

"...neither is water, so go stand under a dam when it breaks...."

12/4/2010 8:59:55 PM

^^ Uh...source on that?

12/4/2010 9:02:18 PM

Quote :

"polluting"

You don't need a pollutant to pollute.

(adultswim beat me to it)

Quote :

"your "water and dam" comment is borderline absurd"

So? I meant every word of it.
What else isn't a pollutant?
[you name something]
Great! I'll just dump 100 tons of _______(whatever you said) onto your farm -- no problem, right?


(god. fucking. damn. you. are. stupid.)

Quote :

"...as levels have been far far higher in earth's history."

YEAH, BECAUSE FOR ALL OF TIME, THE EARTH HASN'T CHANGED

(GOD. FUCKING. DAMN. YOU. ARE. STUPID.)


[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM. Reason : seriously, stop drinking from the republican kool aid -- it's poisoning you]

12/4/2010 9:37:12 PM

Quote :

"If you can't see the importance of green technology, you're, frankly, a fucking moron. "

"green techonology" at the utility scale is a joke, and if you can't see that then you're, frankly, a fucking moron. Carbon taxes will push us towards natural gas, not renewables.

When renewables actually make economic sense, then we will lead the world with them. That may never happen with wind, and solar is at least 3-4 years off. Until then, we'll let the rest of the world do our research for us and then catch up overnight when the dollars make sense.

12/5/2010 2:29:57 AM

^
Wow! Putting so many words in my mouth there. When did I ever say the current state of green technology is perfect? It is something we are working toward and should work toward.

12/5/2010 11:55:55 AM

I need to bone up on points in history where societies have turned away from or conceded developing potentially game-changing technologies.

China is going to work on this tech regardless because they are polluted as fuck and their population doesn't like it.

Also, where the heather graham pics at?

12/5/2010 1:42:03 PM

Quote :

"Uh...source on that?"

uhh... common knowledge?

Quote :

"YEAH, BECAUSE FOR ALL OF TIME, THE EARTH HASN'T CHANGED"

Not the point. Levels were higher, and the earth didn't go haywire. Ergo, it's not really a pollutant.

Quote :

"Great! I'll just dump 100 tons of _______(whatever you said) onto your farm -- no problem, right?"

sure. dump 100gallons of water on my farm. and you'll see it's not a pollutant. Now, of course you were meaning "100gallons" to mean "a whole lot of it," at which point "a whole lot of water" would be a "flood," not "pollution." Yes, any "large amount" of anything can be "pollution," but I maintain that CO2 at the levels we are releasing it is not pollution. In order for it be "pollution," you must show actual harm being done, which hasn't been shown, which is kind of the whole point of why people say AGW is nonsense. Aaaaaaand we are back where we started, right?

i mean really. I've come in here with reasonable statements, and all you can do is get huffy and puffy. If you can't defend your assertions without namecalling and screaming, then on what are you basing your opinions, dude?

12/5/2010 4:22:45 PM