Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 Charleston Chew  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 7:44:28am
Republicans aren't grasping that cutting spending for an investment that would save energy and money over the long haul doesn't equal 'fiscal conservatism.'

Actually, that 's the very definition of a "fiscal conservative" and that's why they're stupid.

Pay for citizen's preventative healthcare?

Hell no, I'm a fiscal conservative! I'll wait til they get really sick and come to the ER.

Pay for mental illness treatment?

Hell no, I'm a fiscal conservative! I'll wait til they go on a killing spree and then mourn the victims.

Pay for new infrastructure?

Hell no, I'm a fiscal conservative! A bridge doesn't need fixing til it's fallen down.

Pay for people's education?

Hell no, I'm a fiscal conservative! I want all Americans to be as stupid as I am!

2 calochortus  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 8:13:00am

re: #1 Charleston Chew

Depressing isn't it?

And for the umpteenth time I'll ask: since when did waste become a fundamental American value?
Why is poor gas mileage patriotic?
What national advantage is there in consuming resources so people can drink bottled water rather than their perfectly good tap water?
How does allowing industries to pollute improve our quality of life?
Why is recycling for wimps?

The same folks who carry on about their beloved grandparents frugal way of life and how moral and noble it was, get remarkably bent out of shape when asked to waste a little less themselves...

3 laZardo  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 8:39:07am

This all reeks of pots-and-kettles. Why would they look for more energy-efficient ways to bomb foreigners?

4 Interesting Times  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 8:43:55am

re: #3 laZardo

This all reeks of pots-and-kettles. Why would they look for more energy-efficient ways to bomb foreigners?

I see the military's renewable energy push as a defensive as opposed to offensive measure:

Climate change is threatening America's security. The Pentagon and security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption to be a "threat multiplier" - it exacerbates existing problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for future climate-based threats.

America's billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. A substantial amount of that oil money ends up in the hands of terrorists. Consequently, our military is forced to operate in hostile territory, and our troops are attacked by terrorists funded by U. S. oil dollars, while rogue regimes profit off of our dependence.

5 laZardo  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 8:59:07am

re: #4 publicityStunted

Then there are plenty of ways to minimize our dependence without "investing in cleaner military technology". Like, say, getting rid of foreign bases in countries that don't want us, withdrawing from foreign campaigns or downsizing the armed forces altogether so there are less resources actually being used.

The military-industrial complex (operative word complex) is currently too bloated that the economies of scale normally applied to R&D would not work.

6 aagcobb  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:25:53am

"Republicans aren't grasping that cutting spending for an investment that would save energy and money over the long haul doesn't equal 'fiscal conservatism.'"

But it does equal lining the pockets of the Koch brothers, who are, in the end, the GOP's only real constituents. This is now a republic of, by and for the Kochs.

7 Spocomptonite  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:09:39am

There's a fine (actually, huge) line of distinction between a "fiscal conservative" and being Uncle Scrooge who says Bah, Humbug! to even the smallest of financial assistance for the needy. Republicans don't know the difference anymore.

8 BishopX  Fri, Jul 29, 2011 12:09:52pm

re: #3 laZardo

This all reeks of pots-and-kettles. Why would they look for more energy-efficient ways to bomb foreigners?

In-theater energy consumption is actually a huge issue for the US military. Particularly in Afganistan. Every electronic device used by today's ground forces (GPS devices, night vision systems, radios, laptops, shoulder fired missiles...etc) is either powered by a battery or a diesel generator. When possible batteries are recharged from a diesel generator. Every drop of diesel fuel used by the US in Afghanistan is trucked in via Pakistan. Every fuel convoy presents a vulnerable target to the Taliban. Therefore the fewer fuel convoys you needs, the more you can focus of fighting the Taliban rather than guarding fuel convoys. It's getting the point where the army is seriously considering installing solar panels (which can be flown in once) at army bases to reduce the need for diesel (which needs to be trucked through the front lines repeatedly).


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 366 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1