Sorry, but that pile of stuff slopped on your plate by the lunch ladies? It's going up.
Story here.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Another Victim of Enviros' "Good Intentions:" The School Lunch Program
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baghdad Time
VICTORIA TAFT
Links
- Victoria Taft Will Speak Before Your Group! Contact her at victoria@victoriataft.com
- Victoria's Favorite Shoes, Oregon Home Grown Oh!Shoes
- Victoria's Favorite Day Spa: The Waldorf Center
- Victoria's Dentist: Dr. Laura Matin
- Victoria's Jeweler: Judith Arnell
- Victoria's Environmental Air Quality, Air Conditioning and Heating Specialists! Her Guys at AAA Heating and Cooling
- Victoria's Favorite Restaurant Selection Ciao Vito's
- Oregon's Conservative Majority Project
- The Portland Motor Vehicle Alliance!
- CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE
- IRAQ WAR MYTHS
- LEXIS-NEXIS
- Buy Your AWESOME NEW OREGON FLAG Paraphenalia here
- Ted Knew
- Debunking Portland
- Victoria Taft's TransFat Offset Business
- When Will Bill Bradbury Leave? The Watch has Started
- The Oregon Catalyst
- Oregon Watchdog
- Orbusmax
- Junk Science
- Multnomah County Republican Party
- Sound Politics
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform
- Numbers USA
- Daniel is Right
- Allen of Salem
- Northwest Republican
- Rob Kremer
- Rino Watch
- Drudgereport
- Michelle Malkin
- Politico
- Freedom Works Oregon
- Cascade Policy Institute A Free Market Think Tank in Portland
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Washington State
- War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
- Michael Tanji
- Thomas Joscelyn
- American Congress for Truth
- US Central Command
- Blogs of War
- AMERICA SUPPORTS TROOPS
- Democracy in Iraq
- Global Terrorism Map
- US Government Spending
- Walter Reed Blog
- <$BlogPreviousItemTitle$>
38 comments:
I know lets divert some more corn to biofuel and the problem will fix itself , sorry poor sarcasm!
A lot of the blame for high food prices can be laid at the feet of the people advocating for, and getting, ethanol, into our fuel supplies. But a lot of it, too, can be the cost of diesel being consumed by the transportation industry in getting the food to us.
It affects all of us, from the affluent down to the people on Social Security and on welfare and into the schools' lunch programs.
The only thing left is to allow any and all means to alleviate the cost per barrel of crude oil imposed on us by OPEC, among others.
And "Others" wwould include all those enviro wackos who don't like the idea of drilling in the ANWAR area, or off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, although drilling has been going on for many years in Long Beach Harbor by the THUMS project without a single spill of crude into that harbor.
For those of you who don't know what "THUMS" it is an acronym for Texaco, Humble, Union, Mobil, Signal Oil companies, a joint venture project that began back in the late 60s or early 70s. And it has worked. As far as I know the only restrictions placed on it was that the drilling rigs in Long Beach Harbor had to be disguised so they wouldn't be seen as dilling rigs. So the drilling companies had to put shedding on the derricks so the would look like some sort of high-rise sitting out in the bay.
Hey DRILL FOR OILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
Drill in Anwar, off the Oregon Coast, Hell drill on the east side of the river in down town Portland.
We don't need "Boutique Fuels" Ethanol etc,Period got it. Corn will be Eaten not put into someones gas tank. You _ _ _ _ _ Liberals just love these rising costs.
DRILL FOR OILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
PS:Hey John McCain are you listening??????????????
PPS: These rising costs are man made DELIBERATELY and I blame Liberals for the rising costs.
In addidtion to allowing more drilling of our own oil resources, we must also allow refineries to be built and get away from the varied formulas for gas mandated by different states.
We can still be working towards alternative fuels, but ethanol has shown itself to not be the boom many think.
We have coal reserves that can be used, geo-thermal energy, nuclear, solar (in some areas), many resources, if we can get the enviro-wacko's out of the way.
There is no excuse for burning our food while many go hungry.
Lew, if you ask the hardcore lefties, they will admit that their desire is to reduce (by starvation, if necessary) the world's population to "sustainable" levels. To them, this means that at least 4 Billion people must be eliminated asap, and the remaining population kept from re-expanding. There is no desire on the part of the Left to create new energy sources, or to expand current ones.
Now as you get into your SUV, and get frustrated with the inconvenience of sharing the road with bicycles and mass transit, you are contributing to the rising food prices, you wish to blame on someone else.
If the total demand for energy would decrease, then the demand for biofuel would go down.
So most of you are in a position where you can actually help.
Eileen, we do NOT live in a static world. Conservation will not mitigate the increasing worldwide demand for more energy. In fact, it contributes significantly to upward price pressure. California is raising its gas taxes, just as Oregon intends to, in order to recover "lost" revenue from conservation, even while prices of all types of energy continue to increase. Your naivete is astounding.
Simply denying reality won't save you.
Mass transit and bicycles are merely political tools for promoting the socialist agenda. They are not cost effective. Neither mode pays its own way. Does it matter to you, eileen, that the lefties REFUSE to put mass transit and bicycle expenditures to a vote? The lefties, in their arrogance, believe it's o.k. to force their will on their employers (that's us, kid).
Telling me how to live my life didn't work for the Germans, Soviets and Japanese, and it won't work for you. Your attempts to hide the fact that huge reserves of recoverable fuel exist only makes you look foolish.
Have you not noticed that food prices didn't become a crisis until your precious biofuels were forced upon us by the lefties?
ETHANOL is causing starvation right now, Eileen. Not me. The blood of poor people around the world is on your hands. Not mine.
If all the social engineers, deniers, and global warming fools would permanently remove their own carbon footprints (not to mention their private JETS), the world would be more prosperous, and a lot quieter. Kind of like a picnic without mosquitos.
Just make excuses to avoid conserving or giving anything up.
Al Gore does it, and in a big way.
Blame someone else.
The Left blames the right, the right blames the left.
Private vehicle transportation may be just as subsidized as mass transit (it depends on which study one reads, they all seem to choose different numbers based on their own agenda).
But the combination of roads, road maintenance, traffic enforcement and parking is not 100% paid for by vehicle and gas taxes. All forms of transportation are subsidized.
This "telling me how to live my life didn't work ..." is a silly argument unless you are advocating no laws. Every law is a way of telling you how to live your life.
Refusing to believe that we are approaching an energy scarcity crisis will not prevent one.
And proclaiming that an energy crisis is coming is delusional. It's not a "crisis"... it's the government smothering energy production to death. There's a difference. And it's wholly relevant to point out that convervation alone is a useless gesture because that has direct bearing on whether it's appropriate or not to demand conservation.
As to the "telling me how to live my life" argument, it's sometimes a stupid one but sometimes it's true. In this case, with ever more unncessary regulations being piled on people to tell them how fast they can drive, what they can put into their car, how many MPG that car is, what car they can buy, what kind of power plants they can get electricity from, the composition of their gasoline, what they can do with their land, etc it's more than mere laws to restrict crime. It's a Big Brother state that has gotten its iron grip on the power to make people "do the right thing" (as long as the government gets to decide what the right thing is) and loves nothing more than to continually tighten its grip, many of the people within finding that its so delicious to have such absolute hold over the ignorant masses. If you doubt this, examine how many tons of paperwork a company needs if it wants to build anything vital like a nuclear power plant or a modern oil refinary.
The Rainbow City Council deciding that trees have rights is just the tip of the governmental-power iceberg.
you're really gonna try to blame the left for high food prices? For pushing ethanol which is coming from taxpayer funded farms growing gmo corn for ethanol or that is unfit for human consumption until it is turned into high fructose corn syrup and feedlot poisoned beef (the corn diet actually poisons the herd) on increasingly larger and larger farms (the small family farmer is officially a relic of the past, especially when it comes to government subsidies, see King Corn, the documentary) Are you kidding me? The left is not wasting taxpayer money subsidizing these agribusinesses, the corrupt are. Even the farmers are questioning their being offered the subsidy.
This blog seems to be populated by a bunch of addicts. I know because I am a recovering one.
There isn't any more oil to be drilled. We're not gonna find any more giant or super giant fields. They're already tapped. The US' oil production peaked in the 70s, everyone knows that. So the question is, now that oil is at $115/barrel, is it worth it to try to squeeze the last few drops remaining to feed a fleeting illusion of cheap abundant energy addiction and stave off the inevitable crash for another few years? (Bush II said it himself, that we're addicted) And that at the expense of the already fragile and threatened ecosystems which ultimately support the conditions for life?
I ride my bike as much as I can. We spend about $40 a month to two months on gas. We are making it work, cutting back on fuel consumption, being conservative.
bear, don't speak for hardcore lefties because clearly you're completely wrong.
I imagine you've justified the loss of life in Iraq with the hope of another fix, another dose of the sweet stuff for another few hours of bliss, while you squander your children's birthright.
tkn: The subject "Another Victim of Enviros" The School Lunch is Right and I do Blame you Leftists for 99% of the Problem. The 1% are a small bunch of Farmers in Iowa who love there Subsidies and a small group of Rino Liberal Republicans who give them there hand out.
You Liberals don't want to CONSERVE ANYTHING. You Liberals HATE OIL (the blood of Capitalism) and want it to disappear. Everything you _ _ _ _ _ have been doing since Jan.2006 and clear back to 1975 worked except Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got in your way. Your goal has always been to "ELIMINATE OIL" not to Conserve it. You SOCIALISTS HATE OILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Folks drill for oil
PS: I've been told oil can be manufactured synthetically, lets do it. We don't need to be using food crops to make oil.
PPs: John McCain are you Listening.
The do nothing Democrats are behind the sharp rise in Food Costs as a result of LIBERAL OIL ELIMINATION.
Put the heat on Hussein Socialist Obama and Billary Marxis Klinton about the rising food costs from Needless Goverment Mandated Boutique Fuels and Oil Elimination. Don't let up.
Whatever, junkies
I'm not gonna waste my time trying to change your mind. I see its already as hard as a stone.
But for the record know that this liberal does not hate oil. I hate our addiction to it. I hate that the powers that be respond to the bell shaped production curve with attempts to make it keep increasing or plateau, both futile, even if it means sacrificing 4000+ of our bravest. And I do want to conserve oil, the environment, our atmosphere, the planet's capacity to absorb pollutants, clean water, old growth forests and good jobs with a living wage. When you say stupid shit like liberals don't want to conserve anything, you just make yourself look stupid. Get a brain and make a cogent, semi-rational argument if you're capable. Any idiot can throw names around and make blanket statements about large chunks (greater that half) of the population.
In case you didn't notice, TKN, Klatu here is our resident bomb-thrower and he's pretty good at it. However, even his most correct arguments are somewhat indelicate.
I notice by your use of the term "bell-shaped production curve" that you believe that we're either at the pinnacle or on the downward curve as far as oil production goes. Considering that there remains a considerable amount of oil that hasn't been tapped or drilled for, claiming that it can't go up seems like a misreading of the situation. Fact is, it CAN go up but the general liberal position is that we shouldn't make any effort to do so, whether by drilling in new places, tapping tar sands and shale reserves, or building the refinaries capable of doing a more efficient job and possibly upgrading current ones so they can handle the aromatic compounds that make shale oil harvesting expensive.
As I noted in a previous post, the difference between conservative conservationalism and liberal environmentalism is the premise it begins from. Both want to conserve but one camp believes in the big picture (and subsequently takes societal needs into account) and the other believes that "pristine wilderness" is more important than anything else. The dedication is admirable but the narrow focus borders on the malicious. I didn't just pick the "giving an idiot child a machinegun" quote out of my imagination; it's representative of the environmentalist premise.
By the by, I find your calling the advocacy for greater oil production an "addiction" rather amusing. It's sorta like referring to steel or concrete or silicon as an "addiction" because all of those things are critical to modern infrastructure and society. I'm addicted to food and water, TKN... I'm trying my best to stop but I just don't have the willpower.
Keith: Resident Bomb thrower? I'm Worse then Victoria or Lew huh, Keith.
PS: Keith I've got a blog. Come on over. Throw some bombs. All 24 year old Obama Rino's are welcome.
PPS: But no Complete essays or books. Only two paragraphs, allowed.
Keith,
I have read many articles that indicate we are on the down side of that bell curve.
The only thing that has kept us from going down quickly is new discoveries, and the rate of new discoveries is decreasing.
We are definitely past the peak of the bell curve for the current US fields (those being drilled).
But the opposing articles don't use the same data (which is why many don't agree).
Data is chosen based on the point the article wants to make.
Some would use ALL the known oil in the values, even that which we can not easily get out of the ground, where the cost of doing so is ridiculously high compared to the benefit.
You told me you didn't think we needed to conserve.
That is the main point of disagreement.
Do we need to conserve now, or is there plenty.
How much do we need to conserve, and what exactly makes reasonable conservation policy, and why?
But blaming the current food crisis, on the desire of one group to conserve, does not seem like the way to start a rational discussion on the how much conservation is needed, and the best way to go about it.
IF it is a policy, that dictates that some set % of national energy use must come from bio-fuels, how can one argue that it does NOT do any good to conserve, and then base that argument on the increasing demand in other countries?
That one made no sense to me.
As ridiculous as Katu's posts may seem, there is a touch of fact in his last one, that hasn't yet been brought up.
He has the percents way swayed, but the idea of corn subsidies is a major player here, has not yet been mentioned (or if it has I missed it).
Corn is not even the most efficient plant source of bio-fuel, yet it is most used. Why?
There isn't any more oil to be drilled. We're not gonna find any more giant or super giant fields. They're already tapped.
Perhaps tnr has missed that China is drilling within the Gulf Of Mexico.
Besides ANWR, America has vast untapped oil reserves that remain undrilled.
No, they won't last forever, but shouldn't they be sued while alternative fuels that are worth it are explored and perfected, without starving the world?
On another note and a bit off topic, since food prices have grown so high, do we really need so many illegal immigrants to pick our vegetables to "keep prices down?"
Klatu, I hope you realize that "bomb thrower" simply describes someone who tends to choose a deliberately provocative means of offering their opinion which isn't an unfair characterization of how you present your messages. It isn't a commentary on the validity of what you say.
When two schools of thought, both well-supported disagree, one must then resort to common sense. The assertion that oil production peaked before most of the modern means of significantly increasing well productivity were developed is utterly counterintuitive. It's possible (however unlikely) that the rate of new discoveries is slowing down but the value of each discovery is going up as more and more of the oil can be retrieved. Additionally, abandoned wells could be reopened to get what was left behind in decades past. On this basis alone, claims that production is on a permenant decline are highly suspect.
I said that the level of conservation that's all the rage isn't remotely neccessary and, moreoever, so long as there's millions of people going without anything at all, arguments that a crash conservation program is desperately needed seems not to fit the reality. What's really needed is to bring everyone up to our level before we start taking a machete to resource usage. We need to conserve somewhat but on the level of more efficiency and recycling and not on the level of diverting resources into bikes and buses instead of the dominant and more flexible means of transportation. There's a fine line between conservation and failing to use the resources available and choosing to conserve conservatively is the less selfish of the two positions, to borrow a favorite word from you.
How can we argue that it does no good to conserve if we seek a governmental fiat to force a certain ratio of energy production? Oh, that's easy. The combination of opportunity costs and the resources required to achieve the pie-in-the-sky biofuel alternative conserves less than conventional conservation. Thus, to "conserve" using that means is utterly useless.
Actually, it's a sensible starting point if the conservation methods preferred by that group have some bearing on the food problem. Once again, opportunity costs weigh down the "conservation" that the biofuel advocates (disproportionately liberals) prefer.
Finally, the reason that corn is used for biofuel production is that it's what we can grow. You might not have noticed, Eileen, but the continental US is badly suited for sugar cane which is the absolute gold standard of ethanol production. As a personal matter, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when the entire biofuel craze crashes into a brick wall but fear that by that time, the government featherbrains will have already imposed biofuel pipe dreams on us all.
Keith: It was an insult and you sir belong to another Republican Party then the one I know. There was a name for um "ROCKEFELLAR REPUBLICAN". Even John McCain isn't as far left as you.
Ps: Keith notice it only took me a paragraph to get my point out versus having to read someones book report. I got a kick out of Victoria telling "your friend" IKNOWHOWTOSPELLCOMMUNISM to make it shorter and quit BOGARTING THE BLOG.
Why don't we just stop these ridiculous bio fuel subsidies? This kind of story would stop quickly.
Why pick on biofuel subsidies, why don't we stop subsidizing corn, as food or biofuel?
Who votes in these subsidies?
Who signed the energy bill (being blamed on the left) into law?
There are native grasses which have been shown to produce more energy per acre than corn.
I am all in favor of eliminating subsidies.
However I would like to see a pollution tax.
Those producing the bio fuel would have to pay this tax as well, based on how much pollution their process caused.
Lew: You didn't mention that a big new oil field was found in the last month or so in western North Dakota. And, it was found in an already proven field by drilling past the producing wells and going to roughly 20,000 feet. In this same area wells are producing crude at about 9500 feet and at roughly 15,000 feet.
Back in 1959, I helped move the first drilling rig into this area, which is about 25 miles west of Grassy Butte, N.D. Then they drilled to about 9,500 feet and hit a good well. In the 70s they went back in to that field and drilled to about 15,000 feet and hit another good field. I helped move those rigs in, too.
But, tkn says there is no more oil to be found in the U. S.
As one who has been there and seen it, I say that tkn does not have a clue about what the hell he is talking about.
I can be concise as well, if I wish to be. And I'm more a Reagan Republican... you know, the kind who could get the Democrats to help him enact Republican programs. But Rockefeller... wasn't he a brilliant oil magnate some years ago?
As loathe as I am to admit it, Eileen has a point about corn subsidies and subsidies in general. It is a combination of these subsidies and government destruction of crops to ensure high prices that is responsible for high-priced food. Hundreds of millions of tons of oranges has a rather significant impact on the price of oranges, as Adam Smith (the 1700s British version) and his ilk could tell you.
I've heard about that grass too, incidentally, and think that it sounds like a great idea. Removing biofuels (except for those made from waste) from the discussion entirely would be best but as long as we must endure the discussion, it might as well be low-impact.
Another tax, Eileen? Brilliant idea! Let's make it more costly than before to operate in the United States while, at the same time, crying about outsourcing. Sounds like a great program for improving the world, doesn't it?
yea Keith, I am in favor of paying externalities, and if that can be done, then I have no issues with just letting the market do its thing.
But because externalities are not often paid, that is where regulation attempts to balance things. (I even admit that regulation often fails to do a decent job and tends to favor some group with power, or even some group with good intentions without getting the desired effect).
But rather than "more" taxes, I am really in favor of "different" taxes.
But any tax, that I come out on the low (or non) end of, I like.
(because I am "selfish" as well).
Except that the externalities you want to slap a tax on are already paid for via the pollution tax credit which can be readily traded between companies, giving a profit incentive for pollution reduction. Short of trying to kill industry, there's no superior idea.
You're not selfish... you're rational. You're against handing over additional monies to the government which is a highly rational position to take.
Really, what point is there in arguing?
You can call us 'enviro-weenies' and deny science til you're blue in the face. You won't change our minds and we won't change yours. We have truth on our side while you cling to ignorance, fear and Fox "news."
Enjoy leading a life of ignorance and self-centeredness; you'll find how unpleasureable it is when you realize how uninteresting you really are as a person.
Keith: You got a problem with Oil and Oil Magnate's AAAAAAAA. Figure's a typical Socialist. Keith you being 24 years old, you don't even know the truth about President Ronald Reagan. My math says you were born in 1984. Reagan Democrats were and are much more conservative than you'll ever be. Nelson Rockefeller or Ron Paul are where your at. Rockefeller Republicans hated President Ronald Reagan and I hope there almost gone now. Hell you were probably raised in the Liberal Public schools of the 1990's 2000's. Thank God I escaped Liberal Indoctrination in Public Schools like people your age and younger have been. The World War ll generation teachers were much more conservative then teachers now, and Teachers Unions weren't in the schools back then either. I tried to fight some of that crap like CIM-CAM etc. PSU what a bastion of Liberalism. History books have been deliberately tampered with especially against President Ronald Reagan. Reagan was never scolding conservatives EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Like you do keith or calling them Bomb Throwers. You say your with the College Republicans. Oh Please. Your a fraud Keith.
Maybe the Libertarians are your cup of tea.
PS: Hey PSU College Republicans,
you've got an Obama Loving Socialist in your mixed
who thinks highly of IKNOWHOWTOSPELLCOMMUNISM (if you know who I'm talking about).
Be careful what you say around this "MOLE" between
now and November.
PPs: I'm surprised other Conservatives on this blog
haven't figured out Keith's charade.
Think twice about his Posts.
Reagan Democrats voted for the man and supported his agenda. The Democrats that a masterful fellow like Reagan got to support his tax cuts and governmental priorities were proudly liberal. Learn your history before you attempt to correct me, Klatu. You don't know jack on the issue, based on your comments.
In fact, Reagan didn't scold conservatives so much as he led them towards a rational expression of their agenda. You are not rational which is why you deserve the moniker of "bomb-thrower" and which is why I've attached it to you and you alone, not the conservatives in general.
Klatu, I hate to tell you this, but perhaps they have figured me out and you haven't. They seem to realize where I stand whereas you haven't the slightest clue. My sympathy.
On the contrary, crallspace... we call you "enviro-weenies" and poke at you for supporting the science that you like and ignoring the science that you don't. There are significant scientific arguments against such "settled" issues as evolution and anthropogenic climate change but in all likelihood, you'd either be incapable of understanding said arguments or would simply be unwilling to accept them as having merit. I feel sorry for you, really I do.
Unfortunately, and perhaps a little ironically, the liberal side of the spectrum doesn't cling to ignorance and fear so much as it eagerly promotes both in pursuit of its agenda. Who spends their time terrifying black people with stories about how the white man wants to "get" them? Which side relies on fear of catastrophe from global warming and the normal person's ignorance of the issue to shore up their power? Who relies upon fear to keep the elderly shackled to Medicare and ignorance to keep the middle class supporting their idiotic economic theories? All of those tactics are liberal in origin and are used without the slightest bit of shame so long as they get the power from their fearmongering. Conservatives need not rely on such despicable tactics... we can rely on the truth because it is our ally; truth is the enemy of most liberal causes.
Hey Keith come on over to my blogwhere its OK to say obscenities at
one another.
PS: I lived the 80"s Liberal Punk.
Yours is a distorted view of history as a result of
liberal indoctrination. Its a Shame.
Pps: Hey Keith your liberal Buddy IKNOW is back.
You Liberals need to stick together.
And Keith: I know exactly where you stand. You belong with the Obama Supporters, BLUE OREGON,
www.dpo.org etc. and I hope that the PSU College Republicans wake the _ _ _ _ up and show you the door. I'm so sick of Moles like yourself invading Conservative headquarters every election cycle.
Your a fake sir. GETTTT OUT and Stay out
Oh good. So now I can have intelligent arguments from the Far Left while you supply the unintelligent ones from somewhere else. Goody goody.
And I'm sick of people who call themselves conservatives but fulfill the worse stereotypes of conservatism. You might like to style me a RINO but you, sir, are a CINO.
The pollution tax credit is a step in the right direction (at least in concept).
But it is only a start.
I do not agree that anything close to the true externalities cost is really being paid.
I would like to see the pollution tax credit applied to individuals as well. But it may prove to cost more to administrate than it is worth. In concept I like the idea.
Good to see your excepting your true Title (Keith the resident Blog Rino Moore).
Rino Keith There's also a term called SEMINAR CALLER, that these Fake's call into Conservative talk radio
shows and pretend to be Conservative. Your a new Breed
a Seminar Blogger.
PS: Cool Billery Won in Pennsylvania
PPs: To bad Keith Rino
Your buddy
Barack Hussein Obama
Lost Tonight.
PPPS: Man its cold out all that Global Cooling.
Operation Chaos Goes on
Eileen You Democrats just love Tax's
Tax This
Tax That
How bout we Tax Democrats only
and Leave the rest of the Population alone.
Ps: WHOOPS Sorry, I forgot
Lets wait till after
May 20 to Tax all Democrats.
Go Billery - till August
PPs: Billery you forgot to thank
Operation Chaos Supporters tonight in Pennsylvania.
Eileen, of course the true eternalities aren't being paid. As soon as they are, some liberal comes up with a way to include new things as externalities. The fact that the goalpost is continually moved means that paying the true externalities is impossible and thus, a pollution tax is wholly invalid.
I see you decided not to dispute being called a Conservative In Name Only. Glad you agree, Klatu.
Post a Comment