I agree that climate change is a crisis. I thought Obama's clean power plan was a good first step and I would also be down for higher fuel taxes and fuel-efficiency standards to help address it. 

Good to see you standing firm on those Conservative Principles once again.

Conservative principles include -
1) we learn by observing
2) what is seen in small scale experiments should be expected to be replicated in any larger scale experiments - one certainly would not expect the opposite to happen.  This is true whether we are discussing the physical properties of pure gases or the character of an individual man.
3) when you put a tax on a good or service, less of that good or service is purchased.
4) when deciding what the government should do next, it is best to consider what it is already doing first.  For instance, we may have not thought fuel economy minimums were a good use of government power, but if we see that they are complied with, with very little impact on the price and quantity of new vehicles, we should try to build on that rather than scrapping it.  Just like we should prefer leaving the minimum wage alone or giving it small increases, rather than suddenly doubling it or suddenly eliminating it. If we see an effort is not working, then we should work to reduce or eliminate it. If unemployment was very high, minimum wage reductions could be considered. But a conservative wouldn't consider them now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just don't get it. Why are so many people afraid of AOC? They must be, right? To work so hard at pointing out her deficiencies it must mean there is some serious fear.

Why? A freshman Congresswoman? Really? What legislation has been passed? What legislation has come close to passing?

Is it because she is better at social media than Donald, so Donald is not the only game in town.

That must be it - those on the right see AOC as the mirror image of Donald - and that really makes them perplexed.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I just don't get it. Why are so many people afraid of AOC? They must be, right? To work so hard at pointing out her deficiencies it must mean there is some serious fear.

Why? A freshman Congresswoman? Really? What legislation has been passed? What legislation has come close to passing?

Is it because she is better at social media than Donald, so Donald is not the only game in town.

That must be it - those on the right see AOC as the mirror image of Donald - and that really makes them perplexed.

It is fear of the future, not the present. The more people like you she gets on board the next decade, the scarier it is.

---

I just don't get it. Why are so many people afraid of AOC? They must be, right? To work so hard at pointing out her deficiencies it must mean there is some serious fear.

Why? A freshman Congresswoman? Really? What legislation has been passed? What legislation has come close to passing?

Is it because she is better at social media than Donald, so Donald is not the only game in town.

That must be it - those on the right see AOC as the mirror image of Donald - and that really makes them perplexed.

She is mentally unstable. Seriously. There is something wrong with her. No one has to work at all at pointing out her deficiencies, she puts them on full display for all the world to see. 

I firmly believe we all have a right to our personal beliefs and to express those beliefs as long as we are not a danger to ourselves or others. This girl though.....she grates on my nerves like Sarah Palin did. Run that mouth and spew all manner of stupidity and hope someone takes them seriously. It's one thing for people to suspect you're just that dumb, it's another to open your mouth and erase all doubt and she does this ALL THE TIME.

As ridiculous as it sounds one of the reasons I voted for Obama in 08 was I could not stand the thought of Palin and her idiocy being one possible heart attack (or anything) away from being POTUS. I didn't want her anywhere near the WH. Ocasio-Cortez triggers my gag reflex just the same.

---

Good to see you standing firm on those Conservative Principles once again.

Conservative principles include -
1) we learn by observing
2) what is seen in small scale experiments should be expected to be replicated in any larger scale experiments - one certainly would not expect the opposite to happen.  This is true whether we are discussing the physical properties of pure gases or the character of an individual man.
3) when you put a tax on a good or service, less of that good or service is purchased.
4) when deciding what the government should do next, it is best to consider what it is already doing first.  For instance, we may have not thought fuel economy minimums were a good use of government power, but if we see that they are complied with, with very little impact on the price and quantity of new vehicles, we should try to build on that rather than scrapping it.  Just like we should prefer leaving the minimum wage alone or giving it small increases, rather than suddenly doubling it or suddenly eliminating it.  If we see an effort is not working, then we should work to reduce or eliminate it.  If unemployment was very high, minimum wage reductions could be considered.  But a conservative wouldn't consider them now.

So you just don't understand what conservatism is....  That actually makes a lot of since.

---

I just don't get it. Why are so many people afraid of AOC? They must be, right? To work so hard at pointing out her deficiencies it must mean there is some serious fear.

Why? A freshman Congresswoman? Really? What legislation has been passed? What legislation has come close to passing?

Is it because she is better at social media than Donald, so Donald is not the only game in town.

That must be it - those on the right see AOC as the mirror image of Donald - and that really makes them perplexed.

Ask Corey Booker

---

Your dream of a legit 3rd party is the same dream that the GND is. Is Trump really that far right?

Maybe, maybe not. His rhetoric certainly is, as is his refusal to reject or condemn the alt-right and far right figures and groups that publicly adore him. Agreeing to a spending bill that contains a billion and change for vehicle barriers will help his perception in the middle while decaying it with his base, so who knows at this point?

Please don't compare my hopes for a third party to that Green New Deal mess. My views have about as much in common with Cortez's as yours do with Hillary Clinton.

https://youtu.be/WLukCE3vwwA

---

Conservative principles include -
1) we learn by observing
2) what is seen in small scale experiments should be expected to be replicated in any larger scale experiments - one certainly would not expect the opposite to happen.  This is true whether we are discussing the physical properties of pure gases or the character of an individual man.
3) when you put a tax on a good or service, less of that good or service is purchased.
4) when deciding what the government should do next, it is best to consider what it is already doing first.  For instance, we may have not thought fuel economy minimums were a good use of government power, but if we see that they are complied with, with very little impact on the price and quantity of new vehicles, we should try to build on that rather than scrapping it.  Just like we should prefer leaving the minimum wage alone or giving it small increases, rather than suddenly doubling it or suddenly eliminating it.  If we see an effort is not working, then we should work to reduce or eliminate it.  If unemployment was very high, minimum wage reductions could be considered.  But a conservative wouldn't consider them now.

So you just don't understand what conservatism is....  That actually makes a lot of since.

Have you read anything by Edmund Burke or Montesquieu?
What do you think conservatism is?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you just don't understand what conservatism is....  That actually makes a lot of since.

Have you read anything by Edmund Burke or Montesquieu?
What do you think conservatism is?

Conservatism in the USA does not involve raising taxes, especially when the goal is mythical. 

Maybe conservatism is that bat [BLEEP] crazy in England and/or France. I wouldn't know.

---

Your dream of a legit 3rd party is the same dream that the GND is. Is Trump really that far right?

Please don't compare my hopes for a third party to that Green New Deal mess. My views have about as much in common with Cortez's as yours do with Hillary Clinton.

I think the point here was that the creation of a viable 3rd party in the US has about as much chance for success as the Green New Deal.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Have you read anything by Edmund Burke or Montesquieu?
What do you think conservatism is?

Conservatism in the USA does not involve raising taxes, especially when the goal is mythical. 

Maybe conservatism is that bat [BLEEP] crazy in England and/or France. I wouldn't know.

The idea that you can build a political philosophy around reducing taxes is no older than Ronald Reagan. 
To the critical mind, it begs an obvious question: what if taxes are already too low? How would you know? If you built your political career around telling people that you were going to lower their taxes, when do you stop?
Anyhow, even Grover Norquist would permit that a conservative may raise some taxes while lowering others in an equal or greater amount.
And that's actually what I would propose. More fuel tax, less income tax (bigger standard deduction).

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Conservatism in the USA does not involve raising taxes, especially when the goal is mythical. 

Maybe conservatism is that bat [BLEEP] crazy in England and/or France. I wouldn't know.

The idea that you can build a political philosophy around reducing taxes is no older than Ronald Reagan. 
To the critical mind, it begs an obvious question: what if taxes are already too low? How would you know? If you built your political career around telling people that you were going to lower their taxes, when do you stop?
Anyhow, even Grover Norquist would permit that a conservative may raise some taxes while lowering others in an equal or greater amount.
And that's actually what I would propose. More fuel tax, less income tax (bigger standard deduction).

I wasn't talking about lowering taxes, so you changed the subject.

Conservatism in the US is about reducing government spending. Wasting trillions on a chimera is not conservative. Increasing fuel taxes to pay for it is not conservative.

That's not to mention that a fuel tax hits the poor the hardest. Funny how you progressives want to prop up your elitist goals at the expense of the poor.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Only the non-curious and grossly inattentive are incapable of realizing that, with our record level of tax receipts, our unsustainable level of spending is getting to the point of threatening our national sovereignty.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The idea that you can build a political philosophy around reducing taxes is no older than Ronald Reagan. 
To the critical mind, it begs an obvious question: what if taxes are already too low? How would you know? If you built your political career around telling people that you were going to lower their taxes, when do you stop?
Anyhow, even Grover Norquist would permit that a conservative may raise some taxes while lowering others in an equal or greater amount.
And that's actually what I would propose. More fuel tax, less income tax (bigger standard deduction).

I wasn't talking about lowering taxes, so you changed the subject.

Conservatism in the US is about reducing government spending. Wasting trillions on a chimera is not conservative. Increasing fuel taxes to pay for it is not conservative.

That's not to mention that a fuel tax hits the poor the hardest. Funny how you progressives want to prop up your elitist goals at the expense of the poor.

You said it doesn't involve raising taxes.  
I guessed you meant that it involves lowering them.  
You say I guessed wrong.  I apologize.
Now you say it's about reducing spending.  And you say that I would increase fuel tax to "waste trillions on a chimera".  But I never said I wanted any new federal spending for climate change.  You assume that I do, but I don't.  While there will need to be new investments in seawalls and carbon sequestration and stuff like that in the coming decades, those are mostly going to be made by local governments and private utilities. 
I apologized for misunderstanding you.  Maybe you should do the same.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I wasn't talking about lowering taxes, so you changed the subject.

Conservatism in the US is about reducing government spending. Wasting trillions on a chimera is not conservative. Increasing fuel taxes to pay for it is not conservative.

That's not to mention that a fuel tax hits the poor the hardest. Funny how you progressives want to prop up your elitist goals at the expense of the poor.

You said it doesn't involve raising taxes.  
I guessed you meant that it involves lowering them.  
You say I guessed wrong.  I apologize.
Now you say it's about reducing spending.  And you say that I would increase fuel tax to "waste trillions on a chimera".  But I never said I wanted any new federal spending for climate change.  You assume that I do, but I don't.  While there will need to be new investments in seawalls and carbon sequestration and stuff like that in the coming decades, those are mostly going to be made by local governments and private utilities. 
I apologized for misunderstanding you.  Maybe you should do the same.

True. You said offsetting the fuel tax with a reduction in income taxes. But the problem there is that adding a new reason (lowering CO2 emissions) as a justification for a tax increase opens up the door to additional fuel tax increases. The fuel tax pays for the roads, so it is essentially a user fee. Of all of the taxes, it is the fairest because the ones who benefit from it are the ones who pay it. But using fuel taxes for other things takes away that fairness.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I wasn't talking about lowering taxes, so you changed the subject.

Conservatism in the US is about reducing government spending. Wasting trillions on a chimera is not conservative. Increasing fuel taxes to pay for it is not conservative.

That's not to mention that a fuel tax hits the poor the hardest. Funny how you progressives want to prop up your elitist goals at the expense of the poor.

You said it doesn't involve raising taxes.  
I guessed you meant that it involves lowering them.  
You say I guessed wrong.  I apologize.
Now you say it's about reducing spending.  And you say that I would increase fuel tax to "waste trillions on a chimera".  But I never said I wanted any new federal spending for climate change.  You assume that I do, but I don't.  While there will need to be new investments in seawalls and carbon sequestration and stuff like that in the coming decades, those are mostly going to be made by local governments and private utilities. 
I apologized for misunderstanding you.  Maybe you should do the same.

Did you really try to shame him into an apology? 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So you just don't understand what conservatism is....  That actually makes a lot of since.

Have you read anything by Edmund Burke or Montesquieu?
What do you think conservatism is?

In the US conservatism is the basic adherence to first principles, natural rights, limited government, enumerated powers and individual liberty.  

Yes, as a philosophy heavily influenced by the enlightenment there is an obvious commitment to empiricism and rational thought but your above rationale presents two problems: 1.) you discuss rationality within the context of administering central economic planning, 2.) you don't even follow your own stated principles of observation.  

To your 4th point, conservatism doesn't define the role of government based on what the government is or is not doing now or how it may or may not be perceived.  It decides based on the concept of limited, enumerated powers.  And we should only expand those powers through constitutional processes with overwhelming bipartisan and cross regional support by passing an amendment. 

This leads to your first problem or contradiction with real conservative thought.  You describe conservatism as prudence in central administration of the economy.  That's espousing more prudent statism, not conservatism. 

To your second and most glaring contradiction, you don't really take in observations and extrapolate past results.  I would argue You're a servant to whatever makes you FEEL GOOD at the time.  Ironically in this case both the minimum wage and AGCC are both linked in their application. 

When Thomas Sowell was working for the department of labor he devised a series of tests to determine the efficacy of the minimum wage law and whether or not it caused unemployment.  When he presented this test to his superiors he expected to be congratulated or commended.  Instead he became a pariah.  Why?  Because over a third of the departments budget at that time was derived from enforcing the minimum wage laws!  There is no debate that they cause unemployment.  They only serve to eliminate jobs for those who don't have the skills to meet or exceed the economic productivity necessary to justify the minimum wage.  But Facts don't matter.  We want to feel like we are protecting the little guy from the big bad corporations who only have employees because they stole children from their beds and forced them into involuntary economic arrangements. 

As a conservative the only thought process should be, "is it the role of the state to interfere in private voluntary economic arrangements that are no threat to the public at large" not "Well since the prevailing wage is orders of magnitude higher than the minimum wage it helps me sleep at night knowing that I am saving teenagers from afterschool jobs."  WHY?  Because we know that invariably, there will be those who will abuse that power!  We see it today in plain view.  

As to AGCC its the same story.  We live on a planet covered with liquid water and powered by a massive fusion engine at the center of our solar system.  Thereby, the energy on the planet is in direct correlation to the output of the fusion engine and 95% of the greenhouse affect is based on water vapor that man has literally no control over.  of the 5% remaining, CO2 isn't even the most potent.  But let's be generous, let's say its 2.5%. Of that 2.5% our country only represents about 25% of global emitions.  So now your down to about 5/8 of 1%.  Of that ....  only half is our technology, the other half is biological.  So now your down to 5/16 ths of 1%.  So if your fuel tax is effective at achieving a 10% reduction lets say, then you are now looking at a grand total of 1/32 of 1% of the total greenhouse affect at the cost of my business and the personal freedoms of hundreds of millions of Americans...  And what price would you have to artificially set to achieve that. We've seen prices double what they are now with little affect. $10 a gallon? 20? Ask the French how that system works out over time. 

So we see that the solution to the false problem makes no sense. But why does this myth persist?  It's quite simple.  It employs thousands of employees at the EPA and billions of dollars to secondary education and to private companies that want government advantage.  Is that the role of the state?  Certainly not.  But it sure does feel good to watch captain planet in our pajamas and relive the old days!

---

Why all this babble about the definition of conservatism? Such a think no longer exists in practice.

And some people actually call themselves conservatives while supporting Donald Trump. Trump supports Trumpism, certainly not conservatism. And the Republican Party decided to sell out.

What Donald knows is what Jared tells him.

But carry on - it's nice to know people's thoughts on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Have you read anything by Edmund Burke or Montesquieu?
What do you think conservatism is?

In the US conservatism is the basic adherence to first principles, natural rights, limited government, enumerated powers and individual liberty.  

Yes, as a philosophy heavily influenced by the enlightenment there is an obvious commitment to empiricism and rational thought but your above rationale presents two problems: 1.) you discuss rationality within the context of administering central economic planning, 2.) you don't even follow your own stated principles of observation.  

To your 4th point, conservatism doesn't define the role of government based on what the government is or is not doing now or how it may or may not be perceived.  (1) It decides based on the concept of limited, enumerated powers.  And we should only expand those powers through constitutional processes with overwhelming bipartisan and cross regional support through the amendment process.  This leads to your first problem or contradiction with real conservative thought.  You describe conservatism as prudence in central administration of the economy.  That's measured statism, not conservatism. 

To your second and most glaring contradiction, you don't really take in observations.  You're a servant to whatever makes you FEEL GOOD at the time.  Ironically in this case both the minimum wage and AGCC are both linked in their application.  When Thomas Sowell was working for the department of labor he devised a series of tests to determine the efficacy of the minimum wage law and whether or not it caused unemployment.  When he presented this test to his superiors he expected to be congratulated or commended.  Instead he became a pariah.  Why?  Because over a third of the departments budget at that time was derived from enforcing the minimum wage laws!  There is no debate that they cause unemployment.  They only serve to eliminate jobs for those who don't have the skills to meet or exceed the economic productivity level necessary to justify the minimum wage.  But Facts don't matter.  We want to feel like we are protecting the little guy from the big bad corporations who only have employees because they stole children from their beds and forced them into involuntary economic arrangements.  As a conservative the only thought process should be, (2) "is it the role of the state to interfere in private voluntary economic arrangements that are no threat to the public at large" not "Well since the prevailing wage is orders of magnitude higher than the minimum wage it helps me sleep at night knowing that I am saving teenagers from afterschool jobs."  WHY?  Because we know that invariably, there will be those who will abuse that power!  We see it today in plain view.  

As to AGCC its the same story.  We live on a planet covered with liquid water and powered by a massive fusion engine at the center of our solar system.  Thereby, the energy on the planet is in direct correlation to the output of the fusion engine and (3) 95% of the greenhouse affect is based on water vapor that man has literally no control over.  of the 5% remaining, CO2 isn't even the most potent.  But let's be generous, let's say its 2.5% of that 2.5% our country only represents about 25% of global emitions.  So now your down to about 5/8 of 1%.  Of that....  only half is our technology, the other half is biological.  so now your down to 5/16 ths of 1%.  So if your fuel tax is effective at achieving a 10% reduction lets say, then you are now looking at a grand total of 1/32 of 1% of the total greenhouse affect at the cost of my business and the personal freedoms of hundreds of millions of Americans...  Ask the French how that system works out over time.  But why does this myth persist?  It's quite simple.  It employs thousands of employees at the EPA and billions of dollars to secondary education and to private companies that want government advantage.  Is that the role of the state?  Certainly not.  But it sure does feel good to watch captain planet in our pajamas and relive the old days!

1) The definition of conservatism should be broad enough to be meaningful in other nations.  Not all governments ever had a list of enumerated powers.  Ours did, and "de jure" still does, but we have agreed that in the 1930s, our Supreme Court decided to ignore this.  We have agreed that it would have been better, if more federal power was desirable, to add that power by Constitutional Amendment, but they circumvented this.  I hope you will agree that the way Roosevelt actually did it had extremely broad support in every single region of the country.  Undoing 80-90 years of jurisprudence over the economy would be revolutionary.  Whatever definition of "conservative" we settle on, "revolutionary" has to be its opposite.

2) I would add "defending the powerless" or the "little guy" to the proper role of government.  You may not like that, but you invoked "the public at large" and you have to see that this includes many, many "little guys".

3) You're right that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but I hope no one mistakes the length of your paragraphs and the numerous figures cited for an actual holistic understanding of what the different gases in the atmosphere do.  You've cherrypicked the figures that make the problem seem small.  But you are ignoring the interactions.  Warmer air holds more water vapor.  The relationship is not linear.  A 1% rise in absolute air temperature can give a 20% rise in the carrying capacity for water vapor.  If some external force (like a comparatively small amount of CO2) causes a small increase in temperature, a much larger increase in atmospheric water vapor will occur right after that.  The water vapor, as you know, absorbs much more infrared heat from the sun than the nitrogen and oxygen. And it will continue to do so for hours or days, up until the point that the vapor condenses into a cloud.  So the total heat stored by the atmosphere increases much more than 1%, and the average size of clouds and storms also increases much more than 1%.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The founding of the country and the principles that underpin it are born of a revolution. Staire Decisis is has its merits but is subordinate to enumerated powers, textuslism, originalism, and the just role of the state.

And as Jefferson pointed out we hold these truths to be "self evident" the principles are universally applicable, their name however "conservative" "classical liberal" carries.

As to defending the powerless. In so much as we defend the basic rights of citizens of course, that is the role of government. But there is no right to housing, minimum wage, the labor of others etc. Those concepts are espoused by statist governments in opposition to the concepts of individual liberty and limited government. Moreover, these systems invariably decrease, not increase, the standing of the average man.

The facts are against you. Historically, rises in surface temp preceded!!!!!!!!!!!! Rises in CO2, not the other way around. And as you know, precipitation and evaporation exchanges are constant! As for cherry picking... I wonder why all the state graphs use fractions of a degree on the y axis instead of total degrees Kelvin?

---

The founding of the country and the principles that underpin it are born of a revolution.  Staire Davis is has its merits but is subordinate to enumerated powers, textuslism, originalism, and the just role of the state.  

And as Jefferson pointed out we hold these truths to be "self evident"  the principles are universally applicable, their name however "conservative" "classical liberal" carries.  

if we were able to teleport Thomas Jefferson into the present, and we just asked him to start giving his opinions on stuff without telling him anything that's been going on, he would come across to us as a libertarian. But in his own time he was a liberal.

Jefferson really didn't care about existing orders at all.

 "it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who[27]gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19[28] years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19[29] years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

Suppose we got our Re-Animated Thomas Jefferson up to date about everything that eventually happened with the Civil War and then the New Deal. The information overload might cause him to completely lose his sanity. But if it didn't, and we asked him about the Constitution, he'd most likely just shrug his shoulders and say "good for you. I was dead. I'm glad the living got what they wanted." Then you'd be thinking, "my goodness he's a liberal". If we asked him next about the level of national debt that we've amassed in peacetime, he would probably be extremely concerned and even angry. Then we would accuse him of being a conservative.

again I think the defining characteristic of a conservative is that they recognize that a lot of things are going right in society that we take for granted. When a conservative sees something going wrong in society, he looks for the smallest and most precise possible remedy, because he is concerned that any broader remedy would disturb many of the things that are going right. This definition is meaningful across all societies and theories of government. By this definition our boy Jefferson was a liberal.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.