Barack Obama – Neo-Conservative (?)

Who could have expected that Obama would be a big States Rights guy, like we on the Conservative side want the GOP to be?

Reversing another Bush administration policy, President Obama announced this morning that he will order environmental regulators to immediately look at the request by Massachusetts and at least a dozen other states decide their own standards on auto emissions, an avenue for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases that help cause global warming.

“We must have the courage and commitment to change,” Obama declared.

In 2007, the Bush administration denied California’s request to enact tougher tailpipe emissions standards, which would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

So, Obama is a neo-con, wanting to uphold the power of the 10th Amendment and return the power back to the States where it belongs, and Bush was a neo-liberal, wanting to increase the power of the federal government over the States? Weird, dudes

(Yeah, I know he probably did it for some other reason, probably because States will enact the legislation faster then the Fed gubermint, but, it was fun to write! Now, if only he and the other electaCritters would remember what the 9th Amendment states.)

In related news, the car makers are highly concerned over this, as they think it could harm their business even farther when combined with this down economy.

And, oh, Mann Made Global Warming Has Been Confirmed.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Barack Obama – Neo-Conservative (?)”

  1. Reasic says:

    And, oh, Mann Made Global Warming Has Been Confirmed.

    You linked a news station’s regurgitation of a blog post of a comment on a newspaper?! Sheesh. Way to do some real research…

    Why not actually look at the paper itself, also check for an actual news article on it, or check an actual climate science blog reference to it? RealClimate has a post:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/

    Oh, wait. That would mean actually “considering ALL the evidence”, which you don’t do.

  2. Actually, Reasic, I have read multiple reports on that issue, both for, against, and in the middle with no spin. Not quite sure what to make of it yet.

    But, remember, my dispute is not over warming, which happened, and could restart. My dispute is with Mankind being the primary or sole cause of global warming.

  3. Thomas Jackson says:

    Obama 666 has demonstrated he is a neo conservative member of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party as far as I can see. Perhaps he can point out where in the Constitution he is allowed to require these standards or mandate them?

    Next thing you know the politburo will tell us how much water we can flush in our toilets or the kind of lightbulbs we can buy….oops.

  4. Silke says:

    Teach said: But, remember, my dispute is not over warming, which happened, and could restart. My dispute is with Mankind being the primary or sole cause of global warming.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively constant from AD 800 until the late 1800s, at a level of 280 parts per million. In the last century it has shot up to 380 parts per million – an increase of 36%.

    As the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report concluded, the observed warming from 1957 to now is extremely unlikely (5% chance) to result from ordinary climate variations. Something must have forced it to change. It is very likely (90% chance) that humans are responsible for the current warming trend. No historical cause of climate change (significantly larger output from the sun, a significant change in our distance from the sun, etc.) is occurring now.

    As you have pointed out before, methane certainly has an effect. Why do you rule out CO2 (which lasts longer in the atmosphere and constitutes a much larger percentage of it)?

  5. Say, Silke, what happened in the late 1800’s? I’ll give you a nice cookie if you get it right πŸ˜€

  6. Silke says:

    How about you answer my question first and then I’ll be happy to answer yours. Thanks, Teach. πŸ™‚

    You have stated that methane has an effect. Why do you rule out CO2 (which lasts longer in the atmosphere and constitutes a much larger percentage of it)?

  7. Reasic says:

    Actually, Reasic, I have read multiple reports on that issue, both for, against, and in the middle with no spin. Not quite sure what to make of it yet.

    If you’re “not quite sure what to make of it yet”, then why are you sharing only a denialist point of view on the subject with your readers? Have you also provided the pro-Antarctic warming sources on your blog? Have you read the RealClimate post on the research, or the actual paper itself?

    But, remember, my dispute is not over warming, which happened, and could restart. My dispute is with Mankind being the primary or sole cause of global warming.

    So if human activity is not the primary cause (and I will agree that it is not the sole cause) of global warming, then what is it? You’ve claimed it was the Sun, and also water vapor, but haven’t responded to my rebuttals on those.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6494 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: