Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The dialogue

The most entertaining aspect of global warming is the intellectual sophistry—though that may be too flattering a word, since sophists possess a veneer of plausibility—of the environmentalist movement. The "argument," as it is played out, always goes something like this:
LIBERAL: Listen, we've got global warming.
LIBERAL: So will you sign onto this protocol?
CONSERVATIVE: Nah. Gutting American industry doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
LIBERAL: But the world is going to end in ten years.
CONSERVATIVE: So how will not opening a few new car factories help? And wouldn't this protocol encourage our competitors to open their own new factories while we're crippled here?
LIBERAL: Because it will. Sign here, please.
CONSERVATIVE: I don't think that's good policy.
LIBERAL: Listen. Why do you hate science?
CONSERVATIVE: I don't hate sc—
LIBERAL: You're a crazy Christian, aren't you?
CONSERVATIVE: What? Yes, the earth is getting warmer, but this cycle's been going on for—
LIBERAL: What we need to do is sign this protocol here. Ready to sign?
LIBERAL: Here's a pen.
CONSERVATIVE: Look, the problem is that even if you can throw off a million years' worth of evidence and demonstrate that human industry, in the blink of time that we've been here, has caused a planet-killing shift in atmosphere, your ideas about fixing it are absolutely unworkable. I mean, it's a gnat compared to the leviathan of human history you claim led us here.
LIBERAL: Stop it. OK? Just stop. Look at this picture. It shows a mountain with snow. Now, that was fifty years ago. Here's another picture. What do you see?
LIBERAL: No snow! How can you not believe in global warming now, you planet-hating bastard? Don't you understand that there is a scientific consensus? A consensus! Al Gore said so!
CONSERVATIVE: Right, I know; it's getting warmer.
LIBERAL: Then sign onto my policy slate. Don't read it. Just sign.
CONSERVATIVE: Nah, that's okay.
LIBERAL: Bah! When will we ever convince you rubes?
And on and on...

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

"If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Troops in Iraq don't buy the left's "we support the troops, but not the war" mantra. They don't buy it at all.

Monday, January 29, 2007

LAT Contributor: 9/11 no big deal; Americans just overreacting

He really writes that. Here's the actual headline—I'm not making this up, folks.
Was 9/11 really that bad?

The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
And he's the moderate on the left—he believes that we should have gone to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor, though apparently 9/11 didn't rise to that level. A fellow lefty he criticizes makes the case that we should have simply tried containment on the Japanese Empire.

So, there you go. We all overreacted to 9/11. 3000 murders in an hour should have been as rain off a duck's back.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Since when is a tax break free money?

Subsidies? What subsidies? Here's exactly what the Democrats did:
The legislation would impose a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.
So they're hiking taxes on the oil companies and applying more fees for oil exploitation on government land.

A subsidy is when the government gives out free money to a company, industry, or a group of people. It is funding.

Tax breaks are not subsidies; it's nothing more than allowing people to keep more of their own money that they earned. Giving an oil company a tax break is no different than letting you or I keep more of our income by reducing the amount of money we have to pay on our income taxes.

But apparently the Democrats view tax relief as a subsidy for oil companies. This is typical for liberals; they think allowing people to keep more of their own money is equivalent to the government giving them money. Which is pretty insulting, isn't it? It's almost like they think that money is theirs.

And of course this is going to do nothing but make prices at the pump more expensive.

The difference between Palestinians and Israelis

Oliver Stone blames poor movie performance on...

C'mon. Guess.
OLIVER STONE blames the poor reception WORLD TRADE CENTER received in the international press on President GEORGE W BUSH, insisting he has turned the world against the US.
Right. Because it couldn't just be that the movie, you know, sucked.

How interesting that the other major theatrical release dealing with 9/11 last year, United 93, actually grossed more box office receipts internationally than domestically. Maybe that's Bush's fault too.

French environmentalists equate trees with 9/11 victims

No wonder most of the world isn't with us in fighting terrorism in Iraq. They can't even tell the difference between thousands of murdered civilians and the lumber industry. I mean, what are they suggesting here? Lumberjacks are terrorists? Chemical companies aren't any different than al-Qaeda?

Do people even bother to think when they create this stuff? What the hell is wrong with these people?

Friday, January 19, 2007

Dennis Miller on global warming

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Role reversal

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Gay killing communists

Just like Che Guevera and so many Marxists before them:
NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".
And here I thought leftism was all about tolerance and equality — except for the actual leftists, apparently — Marx, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Guevara...

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Berkeley Gas-Guzzlers With Sierra-Club-Type Bumper Stickers

They're very, very concerned that other people are producing greenhouse gas.

Monday, January 01, 2007

They'd know

The hanging of Saddam Hussein "violates all international laws" — according to international law-violation experts Hamas.

Saddam's death throes

One of the most tiring sights of the entire Saddam postmortem were the clips shown ad nauseam of all the dignitaries, diplomats, and obsequious reporters who in years past trekked to Baghdad to fawningly pay their respects to the mass murderer.

It has become so that the cheap anti-American rhetoric emanating from Europe about our purported complicity in killing a mass murderer is worn as a badge of honor — Saddam is "our Frankenstein."

Yet we caught him, turned him over for a transparent trial, and ensured he would never murder again. So the question remains: who is the true morality? Building Saddam's bunkers, selling him weapons, taking his oil — or putting him in a noose?