I really could care less if you enjoy my cartoons or not. It has nothing to do with this argument, and is once again your pathetic defense mechanism about being called on how embarrassingly ignorant you are. Just so we’re clear, since you refuse to acknowledge it: in a smarmy, juvenile tone of “teaching me how science works,” you told me I knew nothing about global warming and didn’t even read the links in Inhofe’s report. You then linked to three articles to “educate me.” One of them didn’t even appear in Inhofe’s report. Two of them concluded that global warming was both real and an immediate threat.

You, by your own links, proved you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, and that your reponse to that is to be the world’s biggest asshole about it. So what’s your “point” again? That you think you can “win” a debate on global warming by insulting me and linking to evidence that’s the opposite of your theory? Which science class taught that one, “doctor?”

I’m sure it must hurt for a mere cartoonist to point this out, but you really are a loser. You got smacked down here and you’re too much of a coward to admit it. “Bad cartoons?” Well, that really refutes your own link about how global warming is threatening us, skippy.

If you want to continue with some last-word grade-school self-satisfaction, go right ahead. I’m sure you’ve got a third attack on my cartoons rearing and ready to go. Because that’s all you have. Prove me right, fool.

Stick to drawing bad cartoons august, global warming science is not as yet decided, not by a long shot. My point remains, as always, no one knows whether or not warming is anthropomophic or not, and all the chicken little sky-is-falling bullshit from people flying around the world in private jets isn’t convincing anyone.

My answer was pretty straightforward — a little tiny tax won’t discourage consumption,and I don’t believe that the government would stop at pennies, and I also don’t believe that the money would be used to combat global warming.

Congress would convince themselves that discouraging people from driving and using a lot of electricity was sufficient. Why? So they could keep, and then spend the money.

But that’s just me.

Indeed it is. I think toppling Hussein was “something”. I think bringing a duly elected government to Iraq was “something.” I think the opportunity for us to be on truly good terms with a rich oil – producing country is “something”. And I think having forces on the ground in the middle of the middle east is “something”.

Thank you for finally admitting at least that much.

Admitting what? That I don’t trust the government? That I believe the government couldn’t figure out how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for less than $500.00 ?

Are you kidding? I’ve been saying that for years. Where have you been?

First, George Bush convinced us that we could cut government income by $50, to use your analogy. Second, the amount of the difference between the deficit with the war and without is about $33. Take care of these things and the income/expense imbalance is manageable.

But that’s just me.

“Neither one of those additional amounts would discourage anyone from doing anything, especially if it might not happen. And what makes you think the gummint would stop at pennies on the dollar?”

So you would support a gas tax? I can’t tell from your non-answer. (Again, not a mind-reader.)

“I’m talking about ANWR.”

How the fuck would drilling for oil in ANWR solve the global warming crisis?

Well, that’s simple, really. Keep on spending like that and make your kids pay for it.

And it means that the government spends money so inefficiently, that they can’t be trusted to handle a catastrophe, without wasting a gazillion dollars

Thank you for finally admitting at least that much. And I seriously doubt that it will be Republans who end this war.

(I am taking a cue from Jurassic Pork and leaving off the “ic” in Republican and they will be referred to as such henceforth. AKA, “the defendant.”)

The math is simple. Let’s say I’m spending $100 a month over what I’m making, and charging the difference.

Now, let’s say that part of the hundred a month was being spent a movie, every month (about $20 a person).

Suppose I get cable and PPV. Now my movie expense goes down to $3.95 a month, but I’m still overspending on other things.

What have I gained? Nothing…
I have gone from being $100 in debt to being $100 in debt to being $100.00 – ($20 – $3.95), or $83.95 in debt, but now you have to add the cost of the cable. Let’s say the cable is $10 a month. Now, your indebtedness is $93.95 a month!

You provided it.

“Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.”

When I was growing up, “as much as one – third was not most. Two – thirds might be most — that’s $2.6 billion a month. But one – third? Nah.

Showing me that pork was attached to a military appropriations bill, only strengthens my case that the government cannot spend money wisely.

And, again, how do you know that all the independent contractors will be gone when the war is over? Any number of them could be doing things that they will continue to do, after the war.

If the global warming crisis could be fixed by relocating some caribou, would you support that? Apparently not. I’m talking about ANWR.

Neither one of those additional amounts would discourage anyone from doing anything, especially if it might not happen. And what makes you think the gummint would stop at pennies on the dollar?

I’m sure you’ll never admit you’re wrong, pedro, but you can at least apologize for the way you acted and reduce some of the sting of how embarrassing that was for you.

“Most of that money pays for soldiers and equipment”

Do you have some evidence to back that up? My understanding was that most of the money went to defense contractors and pork projects.

For example: “Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.”

And, of course, This.

“If by liberal programs, you mean money spent to accomplish nothing … then yes, I’m opposed to spending on liberal programs.”

Two not-so-salient points on that: First, how the hell could you not be against the Iraq war, if your main opposition is to “money spent to accomplish nothing”? Second, if the “global warming fix” could be paid for entirely with a tax of, let’s say, $.02 per gallon on gas, would you support it? Or how about adding $.001 per KWh onto electric bills? that way it would encourage people to use less electricity, and your arch nemesis Al Gore would have to pay 100x as much toward it as everyone else. That’s Win-Win!

Second, I learned many years ago that for every dollar the government receives, only 65 cents actually benefits taxpayers. Thirty five cents is absorbed by government employees and their offices, supplies and equipment. That was a long time ago, but I would be greatly surprised if the number had changed for the better.

What does that mean?

It means there will be little or no “treasure” when the Republicans end the war.

And it means that the government spends money so inefficiently, that they can’t be trusted to handle a catastrophe, without wasting a gazillion dollars, or possibly, a bajillion dollars.

So, where do we end up?

First, it is estimated that the kinds of things being suggested to slow or end global warming will pull 2 – 5% out of the Gross Domestic Product — loss #1

Second, there will be very money available from the Republicans’ ending the war in Iraq, for the reason I already stated, and because the war spending has generated a deficit — shortfall #2

Third, the government spends money so inefficiently that what ever it is proposed the global warming fix will cost, you can count on it to be double that amount.

Finally, you referred to “liberal programs”. If by liberal programs, you mean money spent to accomplish nothing, which is what most “liberal programs” turn out to be, then yes, I’m opposed to spending on liberal programs.

See if you can find the estimates for reconstructing New Orleans after Katrina.

Compare those estimates with what has been spent to date. And recall that N’Awlins iis crying for more money, because “the job isn’t done yet.”

Actually, Frank, it’s totally relevant. My question was whether you would consider it time to act if temperatures “exceed a historical peak.”

However, since you then said, “What matters is what it is going to cost all of us if, and / or when the gummint gets into the act.” I have a new question.

If the Democrat who becomes president on January 20, 2009 can end the Iraq war, would you support funneling the billions and billions of tax dollars the Bush regime is wasting on that folly and directing it toward research in alternative energy sources? Would you support reducing our bloated defense industry and instead funding carbon-emmission-reduction programs?

I guess my question boils down to this: are you opposed to the government spending tax dollars, or are you opposed to the government spending tax dollars on Liberal programs?

Very succinctly phrased, z_adura.

nihilistic_disintegration: People are already “acting”. The point is, do we need some sort of national campaign (for “national” read “Federal” = expenseeeve)?

Whether I think it’s time to act is irrelevant. What matters is what it is going to cost all of us if, and / or when the gummint gets into the act.

“Retooling America’s infrastructure could be costly.”