Sen. Kit Bond: Mowing Down Lawn Mower Reform
Sen. Kit Bond: Mowing Down Lawn Mower Reform
Operating a gas-powered lawnmower for one hour emits as much air pollution as driving a car for 13 hours, according to the California Air Resources Board. But Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has teamed up with Briggs & Stratton, the dominant lawn mower engine maker, to oppose lawn mower reform. (Briggs & Stratton operates two plants in Missouri.)
Bond has blocked a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to limit emissions from lawn mowers and other garden equipment by installing catalytic converters. Bond and Briggs & Stratton argue that “converters could add a dangerous amount of heat to already hot engines, creating a fire hazard.” But an EPA study requested by Bond directly refutes his claim:
Our technical work and subsequent analysis of all of the data and information strongly indicate that catalyst-based standards can be implemented without an incremental increase in the risk of fire or burn to the consumer.
Bond is now rejecting the study. Briggs & Stratton is taking its complaints to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), even though the commission staff wrote in March that it was “satisfied that likely fire hazard scenarios were accounted for” by the EPA study. But perhaps this time it will be more receptive — Bond chairs the Senate committee that funds the CPSC.
More lawn mower myths at Gristmill.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Since Ca is so worried about it, why don’t they lead by example first and require the ones sold or used in Ca to have the converters. That way they are doing something themselves about it before trying to require a change nationally?
April 24th, 2006 at 1:12 pmTundra, from my understanding they did,
“Bond got his way: On Wednesday last week, the Senate voted to insert an amendment into an appropriations bill that would not only ditch California’s proposal but relax what little regulation already exists for small engines.”
Bond worked around it.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pmTundra,
Actually, CA is trying to do just that. But they’ve been blocked by Bond. California passed a rule on Sept. 25 — will take effect in 2007 — “to limit emissions from spark-ignition engines of 25 horsepower and smaller, which account for a significant portion of the state’s air pollution from mobile sources.”
But Bond tried to pass legislation to gut the portion of the Clean Air Act that allows states to pass regulations that are stricter than federal ones, destroying the CA rule. In 2003, he and Feinstein reached an a compromise to keep CA’s legislation in place, as long as the EPA study confirmed there were no safety risks and other states would not adopt similar legislation.
But now Bond is backtracking, even though the EPA study has confirmed its safety.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pm1- That logic makes no sense. If it is, indeed, bad for the environment, why does CA have to take the lead? Does the same lawn mower magically produce less greenhouse gasses in other states than in CA?
In my opinion, all gas powered equipment needs to be held to emission standards, even if they are not all exactly the same because of whatever engineering restrictions.
This doesn’t seem any different than FCC regulations that prevent small electronic devices from “leaking” a lot of EMF which would interfere with other devices. Just because they are small and not the largest contributor to EMF doesn’t get them off the hook.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pm#1 Typical Republican tactic: drown good iniciatives in local bureaucracy, to kill it before reaches national level.
Explain me what is so bad in adding a piece to a lawnmower, please. One piece who adds security to the use of the machine. The risk of fire is a lame excuse. In Europe, cars use catalytic converters, and NO CAR HAS BEEN ON FIRE DUE TO THAT. Would you investigate whose pieces in a lawnmower were designed under Democrat administrations to remove them? And then redesing the pieces to have all-republican lawnmowers? It wasn’t Bush who was in favor of technological solutions to curve CO2 emissions, against the taxing proposed by the Kyoto protocol? What is the reason of this flip-flopping? Isn’t good for the american industry to fabricate milions of catalytic converters?
April 24th, 2006 at 1:27 pmGood thing that the Republicans tabled lobby reform for the remainder of the year.
That way, none of the GOP can be accused of breaking the law for taking money from lobbyists that contradict implementing common sense reform.
Money talks. Ethics and common sense get pooped on.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pm2,3
Thanks, learn something new everyday. In that case Bond has no right to jack with Ca’s law.
4,
If it is, indeed, bad for the environment, why does CA have to take the lead?
Sort of like cleaning up your own yard before you start demanding the neighbors do.
In my opinion, all gas powered equipment needs to be held to emission standards
April 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pmIn some conservative circles they have the opinion that a womans womb needs to be held to standards. It’s all about pushing your agenda on others
It’s obvious…
Republicans LOVE exaust fumes. The more the merrier it would seem.
Why do republicans hate mother earth so?
April 24th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#7
In some conservative circles they have the opinion that a womans womb needs to be held to standards. It’s all about pushing your agenda on others
Right. Because a woman and a lawnmower are the same thing.
Well, maybe to some conservatives, they are. They view both ‘things’ and something you can push around and get some household chores done.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pmthat’s snark tundra - so please don’t draw me over open coals too long….
April 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#7 In some conservative circles they have the opinion that a womans womb needs to be held to standards. It’s all about pushing your agenda on others
Hmmm… isn’t about the agenda of “the others”, but about the health of everybody. A woman delivering (or not) a baby doesn’t harm your health, but your 1000 neighbours mowing their gardens do.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pm9
Ok, Where is your line at? Lets get rid of all cars and require people to use public transportation.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pmLawnmowers are stupid. Indeed, lawns are stupid–all the fertilizer needed to maintain them winds up in the lakes & rivers (& groundwater). Herbicides follow the same route. Then, after fertilizing and watering the bejeebers out of the grass, homeowners madly attempt to keep the grass at a certain height with a petrol-powered implement that pollutes like crazy.
Yeah, I’m a homeowner But my yard consists mainly of shrubs, hostas and trees, plus a small “butterfly garden”. I saw the decades ago. It’s nice to have a lot more free time now that I don’t spend almost every waking moment trying to manicure the grass in the yard (which doesn’t occur there naturally anyway).
April 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#12 - I don’t know about anybody else, but if there were public transportation where I live, I’d say goodbye and good riddance to my car.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pm11.
Hmmm… isn’t about the agenda of “the othersâ€, but about the health of everybody
So we get rid of cars all together then and go back to horses, since it is all about the health of others. You realize if everyone had goats none of us would even need lawnmowers.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI think Tundra and most Repubs have trouble differentiating between things and people, corporations and the public, etc. Things like that. Call it callousness by choice.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:45 pmTundra,
April 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pmAgain your missing the point. It is how clean you can make engines and cars could be propelled by other means. Having that many goats would just produce too much methane….my god your right we are doomed. We should just all drink the kool-aid…you first.
16
I think Tundra and most Repubs
I’m not a repub, I’m a libertarian, sort of a keep your government away from me type person. I don’t like the idea of them being involved in every facet of my life as much as you do. I don’t see the government as a savior of all and answer to all of my problems. I sort of have to work on them myself (It’s an accountability thing).
April 24th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#11 A woman delivering (or not) a baby doesn’t harm your health, but your 1000 neighbours mowing their gardens do.
but if they didnt mow their lawns, there would be more chance for ticks, chiggers, fleas, snakes, etc to live in the high grass which leads to health threats, such as lime disease, infections, and other nasty issues.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#18
April 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pmPoint taken about your choice of affiliation. Point of post still stands though.
#15 Tsk, tsk. You love too much extremes. Not commuting 3 hours/day in my own car doesn’t make me a jockey. We have good public transportation, and I use it. We have suburban, local trains, buses (even ecological ones), bycicles. I have a car, but it stays in his parking even months. And believe me, working in downtown would become a nightmare if I used my car.
Maybe the problem in your country is that every republican would-be accomodated politician opposses public transportation because doesn’t give benefits directly to its purse.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm17,
You want the government to do everything for you. Gee if they did have a bunch of containment centers they could keep us all safe and sound inside of them huh?
April 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThat was we are all safe and cozy. They could monitor all of our phone conversations and make sure we eat the best foods and worship the proper gods/godesses. You realize that free thought just leads to problems don’t you?
#13 - I agree. Two years ago I eliminated all grass (stuff in the ground) from my yard. People came by while I was doing it giving me their opinions (never asked for any) about why I shouldn’t do it. When it was done those same people came by and said how nice it looked. They just never questioned eliminating the grass and planting flowers and bushes instead. I use organic fertilizer and keep the deer away with water shooting devices. All is well, now.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pm22
That was we are all safe and cozy
That was supposed to be “Then when”
April 24th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#18 Oh, I see libertarian as in “give me highways, but don’t dare me pay for it”. Read a bit. I recommend you The Social Contract, of Jean Jacques Rousseau (it influenced greatly your founding fathers). Explains how, everyone living in a society, owes the society some things and, in exchange, the society grants its individual rights. In short, you can’t live in a society free of obligations, and demanding rights. It’s not fair for everybody.
And don’t say me “I owe nothing to the american society”, because you use highways (you don’t constructed them), you have schools, hospitals social security, veterans benefits and many more. And your lone effort doesn’t grants them. The american dream of lonely liberty is only a dream. If you’re not a hunter in a wood hunting with bow and arrows with a silex head made by yourself, you’re not “free”.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#19 And to generate more oxygen, and maybe growing some medicinal plants. Oh, and btw, snakes eat rats. Guess who is the more dangerous animal to humans.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pm#22
What? Ok. No I think government should be as small as possible. Make laws that the public chooses to follow and have a system of checking that everyone is following the laws. As far as monitoring our phone conversations…I believe that is illegal. Not a good thing. Eat the best foods…do you have something against healty, uncontaminated food? Worship the correct god/goddesses….um I belive we have separation of church and state and I quite like that idea.
I don’t understand your point.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pmFor me, the truly sad part of all this is that if and when Sen Bond “wins” and successfully kills lawn mower reform, he will feel that he has done the morally correct thing by siding with the business side of the equation. This is why people need to recognize that your Republican representation in Congress is not there to represent you (the individual), but rather the businesses that operate where you live. They couldn’t care less about you, the individual, unless you own a business.
About 12 years ago, former House Republican Leader Bob Michel actually told a roomful of people (some with cameras, which is how I know he said it), “When I go back to my district, my constituents tell me, ‘We sent you to Washington to get government off the backs of business.’” So it should be obvious to all that the Republican Party sees themselves as being in Washington to represent not the people in their districts and states, but the businesses in their districts and states.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#26 you don’t have rats if you have a well manicured lawn/clean house, besides 1-2 a year(if that), at which point some peanut butter and a trap deals with it.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#29
April 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pmI don’t think you have ever been in a rat-problem situation before. My brother lives in a nice manicured neighborhood in the burbs. They had a huge rat problem for two to three years. They don’t care what state your lawn is or how much money you have. Come on now. But to the point what is wrong with making enigines pollute less? It all comes down to that question. What is wrong with doing that. If you give me an answer we can write about that. So “What is wrong with making engines pollute less?”
Tell you what Tundra,
read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, and get back to me about your feelings about government intervention in some things. I am not advocating that the government should run every aspect of our lives. You see bit of intervention, and you immediately start yelling about tapped phones, and living in monitered boxes. Frankly business does a poor job of regulating themeselves. That is why we had the labor movement in the 20’s, and moves to regulate such things as food supplies, medical supplies etc. If you wish to move to a deserted island, where you can truly live free go ahead. I would prefer to know that my food is not contamited, and my water is drinkable.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#30 your brother needs to learn how to keep a clean house/yard. I’ve lived in the burbs, I’ve lived in the sticks, I’ve lived in the city, and the only times I’ve had/seen rat problems are when you don’t keep your living space clean.
But to the point what is wrong with making enigines pollute less?
April 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI believe in the free market. The gov’t shouldn’t be able to force laws requiring more/less polution, it should be controlled by the marketplace.
27
Make laws that the public chooses to follow
Wouldn’t another company making a lawnmower with those safety features on it accomplish that? (There seem to be a California outfit that fits that bill hmmmmm) If the public chooses to follow that law then they would put Briggs and Straton out of business. If the public quite frankly doesn’t think it’s worth the cost then they won’t. Then we as a society can choose what’s best for us as opposed to a few senators who are obviously experts on lawnmower design/greenhouse gases and goat flatulence.
As far as monitoring our phone conversations…I believe that is illegal.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pmOnly as long as it’s illegal to choose your own lawn mower. With the government making those choices it’s all about them helping themselves not about you. Feinstein seems to have gotten a good chunk of money from several electronics companies, hmmm related to trying to drive up the cost of gas powered lawnmowers? To make electric ones more competitive which will help out those companies, not sure here.
#30
April 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe cost of putting converters on lawnmowers so they pollute less could and most likely would raise the price of lawnmowers. It also would likely cost those selling lawnmowers some profit.
I’m not a repub, I’m a libertarian, sort of a keep your government away from me type person.
Comment by Tundra
Hey, Tundra, I wonder if you live up in Idaho? Lots of those kind of people up there. Hate the Feds….hate paying taxes….hate public schools….hate law enforcement. You know, the ham-n-egger types.
Of course, most libertarians I know like having good highways. Bet you do too, huh? And steet lamps. Also a strong military and armed militia, paved roads, fire stations, safe airports, border security, sewer and water systems, ambulance services, prisons to lock up the criminals, phone lines and cable systems, cops to catch the thugs and murders, a CIA to keep an eye on our foreign enemies, and a program of disease prevention.
Oh yes, one other thing they would like: not having to pay for any of it.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pm#32
You leave my brother out of this you dirty rat….joking aside….it wasn’t his house it was the whole neighborhood…a sizable chunk of the town.
So there should be no FDA, EPA, DOT, DOD, CIA, OSHA, etc. Just let the free market sort itself out? Good luck with that.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pmFirst off the whole you love your highways crowd there.
I’m not saying the government shouldn’t be involved at all, but telling me how a lawn mower is made is pushing it for me. I have no problem with taxes, but when you can’t run a country on 40% of what everyone makes it’s gone too far. Where does the line stop? At what point has the government went too far? When they tell Starbucks they can’t sell your favorite coffee anymore, due to one person choking on it once?
April 24th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#34
April 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWell then maybe they could remove the automatice drive on the lawnmowers, which reduce fuel efficiency, to cut the cost. Safety belts in cars make the cost go up in production too.
Joe
Of course, most libertarians I know like having good highways. Bet you do too, huh? And steet lamps. Also a strong military and armed militia, paved roads, fire stations, safe airports, border security, sewer and water systems, ambulance services, prisons to lock up the criminals, phone lines and cable systems, cops to catch the thugs and murders, a CIA to keep an eye on our foreign enemies, and a program of disease prevention.
paved roads (not counting highways)
fire stations
sewer and water
ambulance services
phone lines
cable systems
cops
Are all local services and should not be subsidised by the feds, if you and your community want them, then you pay extra in local taxes for them. If you don’t want them you move to a community that dosn’t require you to pay for them. Thats how a libertarian sees it.
Instead we pay out the nose to the feds, then they give it back to services like those above as they see fit.
Also, in some areas the fire departments are not public, they are private and you have to subscribe to them, sort of like an insurance policy, so at least part still works like it should in some areas.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#29 Inspect the better mowed lawn and, if enough time passes, you’ll find rat feces. They live in the sewers and basements and come out by night, as in the city.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:33 pm“Tundra the Defender of Lawnmowers” you picked a really weird choice as the thing that crossed the line for you in government oversight. There are much bigger fish out there.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#38
April 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pmYes, they should do those things. If people are willing to sacrafice health/safety for cheaper products, the government shouldn’t stop them. Eventually an equilibrium will be formed between safety and cost.
#36
So your brother isn’t lazy, his whole town is :)
So there should be no FDA, EPA, DOT, DOD, CIA, OSHA, etc. Just let the free market sort itself out? Good luck with that.
For the most part, yes. But like any other good hypocrite I pick and choose the ‘useful’ ones that I don’t think society could survive with out, and are theirfore necissary as gov’t mandates if the free market dosn’t support them.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt seems to me that the California plan would fit into the Libertarian view. It is the decision of state of California to have cleaner lawnmowers. Thus a decision was made to require catalytic converters. The problem her lies not with the state government, but with a large company using federal clout to overturn a state law because they don’t like that law.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#35 - Hey, Tundra, I wonder if you live up in Idaho? Lots of those kind of people up there. Hate the Feds….hate paying taxes….hate public schools….hate law enforcement. You know, the ham-n-egger types.
Hey, Joe, be nice! I live in Idaho, and I only know one or two of those types, and we consider them nutjobs. ;)
Tundra, you know what a libertarian is don’t you? A Democrat who wants to smoke pot and hang around hookers. ;)
April 24th, 2006 at 2:39 pmOk, if you want environmental legislation subjugated to the free market, thats fine. But those of us who mind having the air we breath poluted should be extended the courtesy of massive class action lawsuits against polluters. That should raise the cost of non-green lawnmowers. Or did you think using my air as your dumping ground should be free? Is that what you meant by ‘free market’?
April 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pm44
It seems to me that the California plan would fit into the Libertarian view.
It does, I like it see post 7
It is the decision of state of California to have cleaner lawnmowers.
Again California’s decision I fully support their choice. I don’t support making it a federal law.
but with a large company using federal clout to overturn a state law because they don’t like that law.
Agreed on that front as well. Briggs and Straton is not in California so they have no say it what california law says as far as I’m concerned (Just like I don’t, I also don’t want Californians to dictate what laws I follow thousands of miles away).
I don’t like the idea of the Federal Government using it’s resources to best design a lawn mower. I think they have much more important things to be doing than debating lawn care.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#45 Hey, Zookeeper! I never claimed to want to hang around hookers! :)
April 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#42
April 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pmSo when all of the health and safety in the US is left to the free market, who will take care of the people that get sick, injured, die from faulty, unsafe products, pollution, etc. The government…or let the health care system take care of all that. All actions have consequences. And if you have proof and data that say a certain type of action will prevent pollution, injury, etc. and you don’t do it then I would call you plum crazy.
45
Tundra, you know what a libertarian is don’t you? A Democrat who wants to smoke pot and hang around hookers. ;)
I don’t smoke pot :)
April 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pmIsn’t clear air a good thing for everyone? Why would a good corporation not want to make the planet better, or protect the planet. I always thought we looked for the best solutions because it helped the planet (thus our future), and it was ingenious, and that was cool. It is cool to be protect our water, air, and earth. Isn’t clean air the creation of value, as the CEO says in this interview? Isn’t clean air ethical business practice?
It’s crazy to see people who have houses that have an acre of yard, and they spend all weekend mowing. A lot of farmer wives spend that time on a riding lawn mover. Suggestion: Plant vegetation that doesn’t require as much maintenance. Look for environmentally sustainable ways. I remember reading a story about a family in the midwest that planted grasses and wild flowers. They had a whole system down. Basically they had a maintenance free yard. In Wyoming, a new development was going up, and it was required after the house was built, that the surrounding land be restored to its natural state. They have a lot of neat solutions at The New Rules Project.
Use a push reel lawn mower. Why pay for a gym membership, when there is plenty to do at home to burn calories. Plus you don’t need to become a small engine mechanic when it doesn’t start.
There was an article not to long ago about the cheap lawn movers at Walmart. There was concern that people would not maintain their current lawn mover, because it was cheaper to throw out the previous years model out and buy a new one at Walmart.
I suppose the same could be send about snow blowers. Nothing like smelling like oil and gas afterwards. Ick! And what about the gas powered edgers and weed wackers. Maybe Briggs & Stratton doesn’t have the talent to change. They rather spend money on lobbying than research and development.
This is the part of our system I don’t understand. It depends on exponential growth. Meaning we have to look for more and more buyers of stuff, any stuff, just stuff, buy stuff, lots of stuff. When does it end? Is it infinite? And if so, at what cost? So overpopulation, although bad for the planet, nature, animals, and wild places, is good for our exponential growth consumptive system. Where is the balance, the harmony? Our current system is not consistent in providing a penalty or incentive to do the right thing for the long-term, and allows the creator of pollution to just pass the expense on. Redefining GDP project has a solution for that.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#50
I don’t smoke pot :)
Ditto, we all have to grow up sometime.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:48 pmYour air is being polluted right now and I don’t see anyone winning or for that matter forming any lawsuits. As with most things there is a medium. A reasonable amount of legislation, federal laws on lawnmower pollution is unreasonable to me.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#50
I don’t smoke pot :)
Ditto, we all have to grow up sometime.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
I don’t hang out with Hookers =P
April 24th, 2006 at 2:50 pm46
But those of us who mind having the air we breath poluted should be extended the courtesy of massive class action lawsuits against polluters.
Or here is a thought, you could not use their products and educate others about it on your own. If you live in an area with one of these companies you could pass local laws with the people directly involved. You could of course do it in typical form now a days and have a group from California run to Alabama and try and regulate them.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pmTundra,
April 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pmIf there is one thing in this post that I agree with you on is that the States should have the larger right to choose what to do for itself. The Fed should and needs to be be more limited. I think a strong Fed hurts more than helps. For example this topic…the Fed blocking a State law.
#53 Woah woah woah, no need to take it more than one step at a time krazny, baby steps, thats the key to success.
#49 And if you have proof and data that say a certain type of action will prevent pollution, injury, etc. and you don’t do it then I would call you plum crazy.
If we all stay inside, telecommute, and only leave the house for necissary shopping, accidents will drop drastically. Does that mean no more football, hiking, skiing, rock climbing, boozing, or, god forbid the best sport of all, frisbee?
April 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pmAh, I see, only Wayne disavows the hookers…Jane’s working today?
:-)
Squeegy & Tundra (aka Troll-Lite Express) - I just thought you had to smoking something in order to come up with your silly crap. ;)
April 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pmMaybe it should be required that all Republicans in DC suck the exhaust pipe of lawnmowers > at least the Repubs would perish > lol. Everything the GOP does is crass or stupid!!!
April 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#56
April 24th, 2006 at 2:57 pmi was staying on topic about lawnmower pollution….geeesh.
On topic, regardless of laws, as california goes so does the rest of the country. California has too large of a market (33 million) for any company to ignore. A change in law here, such as making lawnmowers that pollute less, will most likely end up in the rest of the US eventually. Not because new laws are passed, but because a company that makes changes to its product to fit CA laws will most likely sell that same product countrywide.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:02 pm#59 Slippery slope, once you get regulation started in one area it moves on to anouther, then anouther, etc. So that 20 years from now things you would never thought of needing to being regulated will be.
Jay Randal: Anouther example of the party of compasion I see, some how killing criminals isn’t cool, but killing politicians is? Wait, I agree with that second half….
April 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm59
Ok, if everyone was forced to use shears then there would be a 100% drop in lawnmower emissions. Or we could require everyone to play 2 hours of Frisbee (That better never pass) on their lawns to keep them trampled down. We could pass legislation that you can only cut your grass every 2 weeks it would guarantee to drop the pollution rates too, maybe hand out ration cards for what day and time you can so everyone isn’t doing it at once?.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#60
April 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pmMaybe, but keep in mind that car emissions differ state to state, especially in CA.
I recently moved to CA with my wife. you are right about the car emissions, but for the most part those emissions are made for CA which has some of the toughest standards in the country.
Tundra,
you are doing a classic strawman, making absurd statements regarding where this legistlation would lead. Or is this the slipper slope argument? At any rate, making a change to the manufacture of a product is one thing. Forcing everyone to play Frisbee for 2 hours on their lawn is another. When it comes to time for me to buy a lawnmower, I will definitely look for a low pollution one, or an electric one.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:09 pmWell, my libertarian views come from my liberal side. I think that government should regulate people less and businesses more. I do not believe that businesses should have the same rights (or even more) than people do. I believe that Congress does have the right to regulate nationally-operated businesses through the Commerce Clause. If this lawn mower company wants to sell its products only in Missouri, and Missouri wants to let them pollute to their hearts content, then fine, let ‘em. But if this company wants to do business across state lines, then they should have to comply with national standards. And those standards should be about what’s best for the people, not the businesses.
We cannot let caveat emptor (”let the buyer beware”) become the national policy on regulating businesses. Businesses should be required by federal law to operate ethically. Opposing this means you don’t think the truth should be valued at all.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pmWhen it comes to time for me to buy a lawnmower, I will definitely look for a low pollution one, or an electric one.
Excellent, my point!!!!!
Would you be willing to pay more (I assume yes as I would)?
Did you need the government to tell you to do that or did you figure it out on your own :)
The only argument left is everyone is not quite as smart as you and can’t figure it out for themselves. The rest of the country needs George Bush to tell them what to do. I don’t believe people are that stupid myself.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pmTake a look at http://www.opinionjournal.com/ weekend/ hottopic/ ?id=110008277 for the good environmental news of the day. Chicken Little can rest easy now.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#65 Wayne
“If this lawn mower company wants to sell its products only in Missouri, and Missouri wants to let them pollute to their hearts content, then fine, let ‘em.”
Still applies to the Commerce clause, several precidents off the top of my head
weed sales in california affect the national supply/demand curve, so still covered by the feds.
During civil rights in the deep south some BBQ refused to sell to ‘colored’ folk, and claimed they only served in state residence so it didnt apply to them, but because some of their supply chain was out of state, it was ruled to still apply.
So if the feds can claim a mower company in missouri only selling to missourians either affects national supply/demand, or if any part of its supply chain is out of state, the commerce clause applies.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pmAre all local services and should not be subsidised by the feds, if you and your community want them, then you pay extra in local taxes for them. If you don’t want them you move to a community that dosn’t require you to pay for them. Thats how a libertarian sees it.
Instead we pay out the nose to the feds, then they give it back to services like those above as they see fit.
Comment by squegeeboo
Got it, squeeze. Kind of like those freeloaders down on the gulf coast and in New Orleans: wanting the rest of us to subsidize the clean up efforts and rebuild their city and infastructure.
That said, just who in the hell is gonna pay Cheney’s Halliburton contracts (as if I need to ask)? Really, as a truely conservative fiscally responsible person, don’t you get pissed having the “feds” (Bush Administration) to give it to them “as they see fit?”
April 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pm61&62
April 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI think the overall goal is to reduce pollutant emmissions. The slippery slope is a two-edged sword. Letting corporations run rough shot is not an option either. Balance is always a good way to proceed. If the air pollution gets to a point where it is that bad in communities and they put laws into place that set the time and amount of lawn cutting that you do then that community chooses for it to be that way. There are many communities that do that now. Including watering your lawn, making noise, washing your car, etc.
I don’t believe people are that stupid myself.
Comment by Tundra — April 24, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
being a bit of a cynic, I do think that people are that stupid.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#65
April 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pmAgreed. Nicely stated.
69
Got it, squeeze. Kind of like those freeloaders down on the gulf coast and in New Orleans: wanting the rest of us to subsidize the clean up efforts and rebuild their city and infastructure
Yes! If my house was in tornado alley and it was taken out by a tornado and I choose not to have tornado insurance well. But the gov’t decides that everyone gets 250K (somewhere around there) but they take off what insurance pays. Excuse me, so if you don’t have insurance I pay for you??? If you did pay out for insurance you wasted your money?
Really, as a truely conservative fiscally responsible person, don’t you get pissed having the “feds†(Bush Administration) to give it to them “as they see fit?â€
April 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pmYes it pisses me off too GRRRRR
#69 That said, just who in the hell is gonna pay Cheney’s Halliburton contracts (as if I need to ask)? Really, as a truely conservative fiscally responsible person, don’t you get pissed having the “feds†(Bush Administration) to give it to them “as they see fit?â€
You know I do baby, you know I do.
Got it, squeeze. Kind of like those freeloaders down on the gulf coast and in New Orleans: wanting the rest of us to subsidize the clean up efforts and rebuild their city and infastructure.
Damn staight, Fing freeloaders!!! If the feds help out a little with infrastructure, I might not like it but I can understand. However things like them covering uninsured damage to personal property? well then why should anyone have insurance? What happened to personal responisblility(or spell checking). If you live in a below sea level area and don’t have flood insurance, or can’t read your own hurricane insurance and see that it dosn’t cover flood damage, why should the feds(taxpayers) pay for your stupidity, this way the lesson is learned and you cover yourself next time, instead, no the lesson learned is that you don’t need personal responsiblity, all you need is the gov’t to come take care of you.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pmIf the air pollution gets to a point where it is that bad in communities and they put laws into place that set the time and amount of lawn cutting that you do then that community chooses for it to be that way. There are many communities that do that now. Including watering your lawn, making noise, washing your car, etc.
We’ll make you a Libertarian yet :)
April 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm74,
Well said, gee you are a bright guy LOL
April 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pmTundra, you and squeeze amaze me. You don’t mind the feds borrowing a quarter trillion to rebuild Iraq, but don’t want to spend a dime for our neighbors in Mississippi and Lousiana.
How come we didn’t hear a public outcry from the conservatives and libertarians when we were using government funds to rebuild Jeb Bush’s Florida a few years back? Or need I ask?
April 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pm77
Tundra, you and squeeze amaze me. You don’t mind the feds borrowing a quarter trillion to rebuild Iraq
When did I ever say that?????
but don’t want to spend a dime for our neighbors in Mississippi and Lousiana.
There is charity for such things, perhaps as Squeege said helping a little with infrastructure I could live with.
How come we didn’t hear a public outcry from the conservatives and libertarians when we were using government funds to rebuild Jeb Bush’s Florida a few years back? Or need I ask?
I was alive and bitching
April 24th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#77 Jeb didn’t show gross incompetance before/during/after the hurricane that led to the lose of a major american city, so he needed much less help, its easier to say ok to a few billion, as opposed to a few hundred. But like Tundra said, I was alive and bitching, all sorts of graft/scams FEMA fell for during that one also, 200+ funerals payed for that couldn’t have been hurricane related etc. It just shows you that the feds shouldn’t be a major force in those situations, it should be on the state/regional level.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:43 pmI was alive and bitching
Comment by Tundra
OK. As long as you are consistent.
There is charity for such things, perhaps as Squeege said helping a little with infrastructure I could live with.
No, that wouldn’t be very libertarian of you to help with a little infrastructure. Perhaps we can count on Pat Robertson and the other faith-based charities to step up and finish what was started? Sounds like a plan.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#78 but don’t want to spend a dime for our neighbors in Mississippi and Lousiana.
There is charity for such things, perhaps as Squeege said helping a little with infrastructure I could live with.
But the basic position of republicans (and antitaxes) is greed (I know, you claimed not to be a rep, but a liberatarian (=rightist anarchist? is that possible?). If they don’t want to pay his hardly earned money in taxes, why do you think they will be eager to pay the money to charity? In plus, there are studies demonstrating that charity goes to faith based groups who YES, HAVE AGENDAS. And sorry, but if rich white people donates to rich white charities whose first priority aren’t black poors of La. with a different church, they’re screwed.
So my point is easy to see: charity = not fair, fed = fair (as soon as it is keep fair and balanced). Please, don’t begin the rant “but they’re not fair and balanced, so I’m free to not donate or pay taxes”. The secret is to work for a fair and balanced redistribution of the taxes.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#81 “why do you think they will be eager to pay the money to charity?”
America, the least liberalized(most conservative) nation in the western world donates more per person then the rest of the western world, on an individual level.
Conservatives, and conservative libertarians have no problem donating to charity because they decide which charities it goes to, and in effect control how it gets distributed, as compared to giving it in taxs to the feds for them to disperse as they want.
In plus, there are studies demonstrating that charity goes to faith based groups who YES, HAVE AGENDAS.
Charity in itself is an agenda, its just one you, and everyone else, agree with.
“The secret is to work for a fair and balanced redistribution of the taxes.”
Any thing that says you MUST give me X percent of your money and I hand it out as I see fit is not in any way, shape or form, fair.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pmIf they don’t want to pay his hardly earned money in taxes, why do you think they will be eager to pay the money to charity?
I pay quite a bit to charity I assure you. Why would I rather the government decide who needs my help, than give it to charities that effect me? I give money to the Leader Dogs for the Blind because I have aa blind cousin. I give to the MDA because I had a cousin that died of it (Big family too). I support several vets clubs through donations that go out weekly and local police funds. I gave money to the Sept 11th firemans fund as well as victims fund. I sent money to Katrina relief (Personal choice) and Tsunami relief.
I know you don’t feel those are “fair” charities but they are things that effect me and they are the things I want to get some of my money.
The secret is to work for a fair and balanced redistribution of the taxes.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWhy redistribute anything? Personal choice. Cheney gave away 6.someodd million and kept 1.7 million last year, hell of a guy I tell ya. (OK Cheney sucks but he at least did that)
Americans, as a whole, are a lot more liberal than some of you out there might want to believe.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#65 - Yay, Wayne! Well said.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#84 - Yay, Wayne! Again…
April 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pm(OK Cheney sucks but he at least did that)
He had no choice but to do something like that. It was part of the separation package he got for himself. He could not enter the office of Vice President with the possibility that he would gain financially from the influence he would have in office. So if the value of the shares went above what it was as of when he made the deal (or some such point before he took office), then anything above that would go to certain pre-designated charities. At least, that’s what his lawyers told the folks at http://www.factcheck.org . (Who knows what other secret deals he made? Maybe they have to give some of it back to him later? Not saying he did that, but I wouldn’t put it past him. He truly is just that evil.)
April 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#84 I know Wayne, I’ve been to the DU, the Kos, and MoveOn.org, I then had to shower several times, but I’ve seen them :)
That said, of course the nation is liberal as well as conservative, its why we split the vote nearly 50% at every national election.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pm#82 America, the least liberalized(most conservative) nation in the western world donates more per person then the rest of the western world, on an individual level.
I think not
Conservatives, and conservative libertarians have no problem donating to charity because they decide which charities it goes to, and in effect control how it gets distributed, as compared to giving it in taxs to the feds for them to disperse as they want.
So, the charities favored by the conservative people are the conservative ones. The ones who don’t want to help New Orleans because are against welfare, democrat states, democrat mayors, blacks, etc. This is oppossed to a regulated fed control, who has democrats, republicans and others. If you’re not happy with the feds controlling the money because there are loopholes where thugs like the Dukester benefits, then control the loopholes and thugs, and don’t let them so many time in their position. The Dukester, Kenny Boy, The Hammer where defended for many years for political reasons. Withdrawing the money to help people in disgrace is criminal.
Any thing that says you MUST give me X percent of your money and I hand it out as I see fit is not in any way, shape or form, fair.
I don’t give the money to you or anyone else personally, but to the government. And I have every the right to control my government, to make the money reach the people who has less luck than I.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#89 Sorry, the link was broken:
Good link
April 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pmZookeeper, I’ve met a couple of “libertarians” when they were scraping the little black square with a W in it off their cars also…………….LOL
April 24th, 2006 at 4:16 pmComment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
Comment by Tundra — April 24, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Kinda funny to know you guys sit about a 100 yards a part.
Almost as funny as a picture of a lawn mower on Think Progress, with so many comments attached.
At what point are we sacrificing the big battles for the smaller ones? Or are they all just so big that we bat at them as much as possible, like a swarm of gnats, hoping we might get lucky and hit something at some point?
April 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#87 Surely he had also a great tax cut for donating so much money to charity. In plus, surely Tommy DeLay found a manner to funnel the money back to Cheney… you know, as G.W. wife did with the teaching software…
April 24th, 2006 at 4:20 pmThat said, of course the nation is liberal as well as conservative, its why we split the vote nearly 50% at every national election.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
It’s like a spectrum though - with each side ranging from extreme to moderate. I’m wondering, since the extremes are the minority, if we couldn’t do a better job appealing to the middle. That candidate, should one be smart enough to do the math, might find him or herself look at a 70-30 victory instead of the usual 49-51 hair-splitter… Just a thought.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:22 pm#94 As I see it, a two party system is a bit as a color-blind person… he only can distinguish black and white. Some more parties wouldn’t make too much damage in your country’s political spectrum (at least not as much damage as has been done already by two :D ), and would add a gradation and complexity who would help advance your country, IMHO.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pmSome more parties wouldn’t make too much damage in your country’s political spectrum (at least not as much damage as has been done already by two
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 24, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
There was a nasty political fight between two candidates in Oslo when I was there in 1998. Police, tear gas, attack dogs and a lot of chaos. So, I went up to some strnge man and aksed him what was going on. He told me that unlike America, Sweden had 7 parties and that they had a bigger range from far left to far right. The two who just battled were extreme left and extreme right candidates. He explained why a multi-party system was preferable. And I agree. Parlimentary bodies give all voices a platform - not just those two somewhere right of center fighting for the same votes.
I just don’t have faith in the average American to vote for third party candidtaes, much less fourth and fifth , in any real capacity. Status quo is easier. And sometimes we’re a bit too much about easy.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#96, meant Stockholm. Was in Sweden, not Norway…
April 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pm#90 Yes, the gov’t does look stingy, yours would too if it was caught up in as many police actions as are required of us to mantain status quo.
“America, the least liberalized(most conservative) nation in the western world donates more per person then the rest of the western world, on an individual level.”
However, like I bolded here, individual level.
If you look at individual donations, you get America over the other countries listed (remeber that time and money chart only tracks non-religous charity, of which 62% of american donations are, and states that 10% in Britian is a high European rate of religous-charity)
“And I have every the right to control my government, to make the money reach the people who has less luck than I.”
April 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pmBeyond the cheap shot I want to take, how much of it is luck, and how much of it is stupid choices? My own life, and my families, has taught me it’s more of the latter and much less of the former. So why should I have to subsidise other peoples stupid choices unless I choose to thru charity.
#94 As I see it, a two party system is a bit as a color-blind person… he only can distinguish black and white. Some more parties wouldn’t make too much damage in your country’s political spectrum (at least not as much damage as has been done already by two :D ), and would add a gradation and complexity who would help advance your country, IMHO.
More parties, more instability. There are very real trade offs to moving from 2 parties to a more democractic party system.
In addition, why should the extremes get a real voice, if you only represent 10% of the population, you shouldnt be able to throw more than your weight around due to the need to form coalitions like what happens in parlimentary systems.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pmIn addition, why should the extremes get a real voice, if you only represent 10% of the population, you shouldnt be able to throw more than your weight around due to the need to form coalitions like what happens in parlimentary systems.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Because, they have a voice then. Get it? Equal representation? And on occasion, they will present something that the middle or other side didn’t see… PLus, ends act as anchors to keep the middle from drifting too far to one side or the other, as has frequently happened in our past.
Most democracies are parlimentary, including the world’s largest - India.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#100 And we are the worlds longest running, we must be doing something correctly.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#100 And we are the worlds longest running, we must be doing something correctly.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Actually, the Republic in Venice went for 500 years. You should study tehir downfall. It’s already paralleling ours.
Even the stupid get lucky sometimes. How else do you explain the evolution of dung beetles, chicken and Anna Nicole Smith?
April 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pmWhat we need to do is wait for fuel cell based lawn mowers–see we can have clean air and a good economy…but technology takes time so we just need to wait.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pmThe reason that the USA is a major user of petroleum and thus a major polluter is that there is virtually no existing inner or intra city transportation system. This is a change from the past when a person could use a combination of busses and trains to get from point A to point B without an automobile. The decline started somewhere around 1955. At the current time, the entire land transportation system has been bankrupted.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:10 pmIn the mid 1980’s I was in a small village (Farming and bedroom), Weil im Schoenbuch, Germany. I could walk about 150 feet from my back door and use public transport(bus, ferry and train) to get to Stratford upon Avon (England for you Neocons). I actually did that with a wife and three kids in tow. The infrastructure is still present in Europe. Since GM lobbied to tear ours apart, it has not been reestablished. This is the reason that our nation is in the pickle that it finds itself.
but technology takes time so we just need to wait.
Comment by idlecrank — April 24, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Or a dedicated program like the ones run thru the War Department during WW2 in order to get the technologies and weapons to win the war……but that was government spending wasn’t it…can’t have that soooo bad, never good ask and wingnut and they will tell you so.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pm105,
Are you advocating a dedicated Federal government funded program with the sole purpose of improving lawn mowers?
April 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#102 Republic for its day maybe….when its largest body went so far as to include most of the nobility. So your saying we should move away from popular vote back to limited suffrage so we can last anouther 300 years? How very elitest of you.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:21 pm#106 No more like a program to find an alternative to oil for the future and to create the infrastructure AKA Brazil, a modern country which is becoming energy independent…if it creats a low or non poluting lawn mowing device well that is just a bonus(and maybe a quite one so I can sleep a bit late on Sat morning with out my neighbor waking me with his mufflerless contrtaption)…
April 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pmThey have quite a few nice options here. A California company hmmmmmmm, coincidence. Perhaps it’s an attempt to drive Briggs and Stratton out of business and help out a locally owned business.
http://www.composters.com/docs/lawncare.html
They are already comparable in price and quite. Now just to force everyone to get one.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:33 pmno need to force Tundra, just give people an alternative that won’t pollute, and that doesn’t cost more then the others, sell based on its enviromental principles, and it will sell itself.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:36 pmno need to force Tundra, just give people an alternative that won’t pollute, and that doesn’t cost more then the others, sell based on its enviromental principles, and it will sell itself.
Let the market iron it out. I love it. :)
April 24th, 2006 at 5:41 pmActually I think the Chinese or Ottoman Empire trump any of existing or historical empires. the chinese can or used to be able to produce records going back farther then the birth of christ, and the Ottoman empire survived for 6 or 700 years.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#36
So your brother isn’t lazy, his whole town is :)
So there should be no FDA, EPA, DOT, DOD, CIA, OSHA, etc. Just let the free market sort itself out? Good luck with that.
For the most part, yes. But like any other good hypocrite I pick and choose the ‘useful’ ones that I don’t think society could survive with out(SIC), and are theirfore(SIC) necissary(SIC) as gov’t mandates if the free market dosn’t(SIC) support them.
Comment by squegeeboo
To squegee,
April 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pmThere are various reasons for rat problems, and not all of them have to do with cleanliness. Last fall there was some road construction going on not far from my house, and that apparently upset rodent habitats and caused a larger-than-usual influx of the critters into my neighborhood. Fortunately, one of my cats is a great mouser (and “ratter”).
You said on another thread that you are a “computer programer(SIC).” Don’t the computers you use have spelling checkers? We all make typos and suffer occasionally from stuck keys, but your spelling is consistently bad–sometimes laughable. By the way, the disease is “Lyme”–not “lime.” It’s named after a town in England where it was first discovered.
#113 Tundra,
There are some problems in the world that capitalism cannot and will not solve. Sometimes you have to do what’s best for the people (or, as you think of them, “customers”) even if it doesn’t make money because you have to make sure there are still people (or customers, if you prefer) around to buy your goods and services.
I’m no Christian, but I’ve heard it said that the love of money is the root of all evil. Why will there only be solutions to problems when someone figures out how to make money off them? Why can’t people do what’s necessary because it’s the morally correct thing to do? Sorry, but free market lovers do not care about people, just money.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:50 pmWayne Christ did directally say you can not serve both God and Money(wonder which comes first for Bush, Cheney, the GOP and Christofascists?)
April 24th, 2006 at 5:56 pmSo your saying we should move away from popular vote back to limited suffrage so we can last anouther 300 years? How very elitest of you.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
No, I think you know better by now. I think the extremists erase one another’s votes. I’m more for better education of the population, so the votes are informed. Raise the knowledge level of those who vote, not limit votes.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#116 Lora
We all make typos and suffer occasionally from stuck keys, but your spelling is consistently bad–sometimes laughable. By the way, the disease is “Lymeâ€â€“not “lime.†It’s named after a town in England where it was first discovered.
Thanks for the info on lyme/lime, as for my typos, if its something that matters i spell check it, and have friends grammer check it because for whatever reason I consistently suck at it regardless of how much effort I put in. For things like argueing on the interweb? I tend to just type then hit enter and go with it. After all just by argueing here I’m already retarded or so the saying goes, so why improve my grammatical/spelling skills above that level.
#119 I’m more for better education of the population, so the votes are informed. Raise the knowledge level of those who vote, not limit votes.
I’ve given up on that, to many of my friends would rather discuss American Idol or the local sporting team and glaze over instantly when people like myself and tundra start talking about what really affects our lives.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:11 pmI’ve given up on that, to many of my friends would rather discuss American Idol or the local sporting team and glaze over instantly when people like myself and tundra start talking about what really affects our lives.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 24, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Know what you mean. But I am beginning to see that most of those people don’t register to vote, much less actually go to a polling place and fuss with ballots. So, perhaps there is some level of self-limiting suffrage then?
April 24th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#110 “You do realize that charity levels (measured both by percent of income and raw dollars) are MUCH higher in blue states than they are in red states don’t you?”
Here Ryan, have some facts:
Donations ranked by state
Michelle Malkin breaks it down by voting in the last election
#112″Really? How about Rome and Athens.
Both lasted much longer than us.
Or how about Switzerland? They’ve been a republic/democracy since 1648.”
Sorry I forgot to use the word current next to longest, as to Switzerland, they replaced their constitution with a new one in 1848, so to me its a new government that started at that point.
Good to have you back, people were much to congenial with each other over the past week, time to get back to good old fashioned partisan name calling. Hope your spring break was nice.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pm#122 - Squeegy, you don’t get FACTS from Michelle Malkin’s website. If you want a shrill, self-hating woman, go there, otherwise stay away. It’s for your own good. :-)
April 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pmZoo, its just her ranking the first one by voting colors, I had thought about putting a warning on the link for you libs though, so your heads wouldn’t explode in rage if you clicked it by accident.
For people who claim to love minorities, man you hate her more then the Uncle Toms/Aunt Jemimas in the administration.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#124 I won’t speak for anyone else here, but my own dislike of Michelle Malkin has nothing to do with her race and everything to do with her incredibly stupid, f’ed up way of looking at things. I couldn’t care less what her ethnic, racial or religious heritage is. I dislike her for purely personal reasons.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:59 pmI don’t like Malkin because she is rabid. Just a personal opinion I suppose.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:02 pmLet’s not forget that Michelle Malkin, a woman of Asian (Philippina) descent, wrote an entire book defending racial profiling in general and specifically the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. If anything, she’s the racist here.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pmAnyway, maybe we shouldn’t pay much attention to a poster who has already admitted (in #120) to being retarded.
#127 Anyway, maybe we shouldn’t pay much attention to a poster who has already admitted (in #120) to being retarded.
It hurts cause its true.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:54 pmYou could get a helmet Squegee it might help
April 24th, 2006 at 9:12 pmI won’t speak for anyone else here, but my own dislike of Michelle Malkin has nothing to do with her race and everything to do with her incredibly stupid, f’ed up way of looking at things. I couldn’t care less what her ethnic, racial or religious heritage is. I dislike her for purely personal reasons.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — April 24, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
I’ll Second that. She’s like fingernails on a chalkboard to anyone that has a bit of sense. Just to show that race or color have nothing to do with it, Oreilly and Coulter are equally abrasive and spiteful and ALL of them parrot the same ministry attack style.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:51 pmCheck this out;
Like George W. Bush Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, Rove managed to avoid the Vietnam draft with a college deferment, but dropped out of the University of Utah in 1971, never obtaining a degree. While at the University of Utah, Rove began his real-life political career as the executive director of the College Republican National Committee. He held this position until 1972 when he became the National Chairman of the College Republicans (1973-1974). As chairman, Rove had access to many powerful politicians and government officials during the Watergate scandal, including then CIA director George H. W. Bush. For the next few years, he worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush’s 1980 presidential campaign. Rove’s greatest claim to fame at the time was that he had introduced Bush to Lee Atwater. A signature tactic of Rove was to attack an opponent on the opponent’s strongest issue. Another tactic used since high school, was to launch smear campaigns against any political rival no matter how insignificant. Rove early on was a master at slander, usually imputing sexual deviations to his opponents but always being careful to divorce himself from the resulting reactions. Reports in his school files indicate that he was repeatedly warned by school authorities about these allegations of sexual deviancy but Rove always very smugly denied being their author. A school district psychiatrist wrote that Rove was sexually inadequate and had developed an “almost pathological hatred†of so-called “normal†students. The general consensus of Karl Rove in high school is that he was very bright but obsessive about gaining some kind of control over his fellow students and doing so by publicly humiliating them. Rove was termed “arrogant, untruthful and very destructive†in his interpersonal reactions while in school.
So you can see where they get this Rhetoric from. Rove is Unstable and always has been. Coulter and many other mimick this ODD behaviour
Full Article;
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2286.htm#001
In this story we find some very interesting observations-
(1) The idea that Republicans support State’s Rights (in this case, California) is a joke.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:10 pm(2) A single Republican at the Federal Level can stifle the will of the people, because he has a vested interest in the status quo.
(3) Instead of allowing the people to address pollution in their environment, we get the government forcing pollution on us.
(4) What is wrong with making markets change to the demands of the buyers? As long as the same rules apply to all businesses (all lawnmovers requiring catalytic converters), the market is nuetral to the manufacturer. The ones that do it most cost effectively will get the business, those that don’t won’t.
(5) Anti-pollution laws create new business opportunities….why don’t “pro-business” Republicans allow the market to change and exploit new market opportunities? If we had kept demanded better CAFE standards from the automotive industry, they might not be having their lunch eaten by Toyota and Honda today.
(6) Looks to me like protectionism, another Republican talking point of the past that they’ve shit-canned.
When The Rapture sucks Kitty Bond and his fellow blowhards to heaven, no grass will need to be cut there. He’s just preparing for that big lawn on the other side.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:15 amKit Bond; what a winner.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:23 am#115 Yes, they trump many of the empires. Rome also lasted about 1000 years. But the longest living empire was the Egyptian. They went for 3 or 4 thousand years, until they were conquered by the romans and the last mandatary (Cleopatra VII) suicided.
So as people try to justify the excellence of all facets of american democracy over other ideas and concepts for having lasted 230 years or so, are measuring the success of a political system by comparatively few years. A bit of humility doesn’t harm nobody, and helps to constate the own mistakes. In plus, new ideas can improve the democracy. Letting it fosilize would harm you, your country and everybody.
And, if the only measure of success of a given civilization is time lasted, then maybe we must return to mummify pharaos and construct pyramids.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:35 am[…] Indeed, thanks to Missouri’s own Senator Kit Bond and lawnmower engine manufacturer Briggs and Stratton, regulation of lawnmower engines may have to wait. However, amongst the noise and fumes of the army of suburban lawnmowers, the Goat may well emerge as the environmentally friendly, low noise, low emission alternative. […]
July 17th, 2006 at 4:54 am[…] And guess what? Gas-powered lawn mowers are horrible polluters! Apparently cutting for one hour is about the same as driving for 100 miles! I have a hippy-treehugger hybrid, so I can probably drive two hundred miles on that emissions budget. There have been moves to add pollution controls to small engines, but they are often blocked by industry lobbyists, or valiant crusaders against evil regulatory expansionism, depending on your point of view. I’m always interested in living more efficiently, so I think it’s worth considering. […]
October 15th, 2006 at 9:22 pmBush had no experience in reality at that time to understand that life is not one big fairytale with easy theoretical answers. He’s learning, though more slowly than most folks, that the reality of a thing rarely lines up with your idea of it. Too bad that his education in reality has come at our expense.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:22 amcountrywide home insurance
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pmJack
Hello. This is very nice blog
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 amOdilia
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:20 amCary
To do something, however small, to make others happier and better, is the highest ambition, the most elevating hope, which can inspire a human being.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pmInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view