Profiles in F*cking Courage, the lot of 'em.
1 Like
The President is playing chess with these Republicans, while the Senate Democrats are so willing to play politics in an effort to protect Senate Dems up for reelection who canât seem to decide what they are for or what they are against, or even if they really truly are Democrats in the first place. Sen. Mikulski should not even have pushed so hard for these amendments. Maybe she should have resorted to feeding the lions at the zoo instead?!
Obama kept delaying the Keystone pipeline for his own election, why couldnât he delay these rules until after the November election?
The McConnell Amendment canât pass if the Dems vote against it. Canât anybody count?
And right before the elections, too! Pretty please!
Please, GOP, shut 'er down.
Democrats in power for the foreseeable future.
If McConnell and his merry band had been on the Titanic they would have been busy chopping more holes in the hull.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES PLEASE SHUT IT DOWN ONCE MORE REPUK"s
For fuckâs sake Dems - grow a pair! These assholes wouldnât pull a shutdown this close to the midterms!
Donât these boys ever get tired of playing with themselves? The EPA has been provided cover by the Supreme Court on two occasions already. Must we have another?
I wish the dems had the courage to do whatâs right for the country instead of worrying about their next election,
Kudos to my President
1 Like
Specifically, three Democrats, all of whom are on the energy committee. We want to get these rules through, theyâve got to win their elections. No, it doesnât help that theyâre scared of their own shadows on ALMOST EVERY SUBJECT (Theyâre all strong on Obamacare, interestingly enoughâŚ), but stillâŚ
They would if they thought it would get one more dumbass libertarian shut-in to the polls on Election Day. Thatâs what this (and every other) move the GOTP makes is about, so if youâve got a ranch, I wouldnât bet it just yet.
The contention that methane is âmore dangerous than CO2â is misleading and basically stupid handwringing. Burning methane for energy is far better than burning coal because coal produces far more CO2 per btu than methane.
Good quality coal, which is basically all that gets burned anymore, is almost pure carbon meaning almost every BTU results in CO2 emissions. Methane, however, is one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms, so much of the energy comes from turning those hydrogen atoms into the dreaded pollutant di-hydrogen monoxide resulting in less CO2 per BTU.
It is true that if methane is released into the atmosphere rather than burned, it is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. But a molocule of methane breaks down (into CO2 and water) in the atmosphere within about five years just because it is in contact with oxygen. Breaking down that incredibly powerful carbon-oxygen bond in CO2, however, takes more energy input than you get out if you burn it again.
Using more methane might lead to more accidental emissions, but itâs a drop in the bucket compared to the methane being released by cows and people and that will be/is being released due to permafrost thawing in Russia, Canada and Alaska.
Ideally, we need to stop burning anything with carbon in it for energy. But in if weâre going to burn something, itâs far, far better to burn gas than coal.
3 Likes
Big Carbon doesnât have much of a presence in Arkansas. Much more so in Alaska and Louisiana. And frankly, Alaska seems to be packed tight with dumbasses who think Alaska will actually benefit from global warming. Because clearly a mass extinction event is just what the doctor ordered for people who are kind of cray-cray about killing and eating the local fauna.
Thereâs a theory that Democrats are going to turn out in big numbers in Alaska because pot legalization is on the ballot as well as a proposal to increase the minimum wage there
Senate Republican offered his amendment to prevent funding for the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agencyâs rules on meth labs until the administration certified that it wouldnât harm jobs.
I dunno. That jobs-over-all concern seems kinda short sighted to me.
I mean, Iâm sure the meth lab industry would support plenty of jobs. But the jobs shouldnât be the MAIN issue when deciding rules about meth labs⌠or anything.
On a side note: Why arenât the GOPers concerned about all the jobs theyâre harming as they regulate the abortion clinic industry out of existence in various states?
That is assuming Landrieu, Manchin, Rockfeller, Udall (in Colorado) and Begich would vote against the amendment which is not a sure thing. From every indication Iâve seen those five are not supportive of the new EPA regs the administration put forward because of the states they represent, Louisana, West Virginia, Colorado and Alaska.
It also wrong-foots Alison Grimes who has a real chance of unseating McConnell.
1 Like
More than those three. Landrieu, Manchin, Rockfeller, Udall (in Colorado) and Begich. It also wrong-foots Alison Grimes who has a real chance of unseating McConnell.
âMcConnellâs Push To Block Obamaâs Climate Rules Spooks Senate Demsâ
You can spook (not the best choice of words, butâŚ) Senate Doormats by opening a can of Coke on the floor of the Senate. With Fearless âTrigger pullerâ Reid in charge, Iâm shocked that the Turtle hasnât got the whole bunch of them crammed into the cloakroom, and afraid to come out, like Chuchundra, the muskrat.
Iâm old enough to remember when there were really two very different âPartiesâ in this country, and when the Democrats were not in the majority, they were a genuine opposition.
No such luck now, I suppose. This, of course, overlooks the fact that Democrats have a âMajorityâ in the Senate.
So why isnât someone shoving the Turtle into the cloakroom for a change? Wait. Wait⌠I almost said Democrats and change in the same sentence⌠It is to laugh!!!