English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

WIth windmills they complain about bird migration patterns. With nuclear energy they complain about nuclear waste and now about the reactors being terrorist targets. With hydroelectric they complain about fish mating patterns. With solar power they complain about how the large space needed for the panels encroaches on desert wildlife.

So when none of these projects passes muster because some local environmental group shut them down with political pressure, we get stuck using the same amount of fossil fuels.

Why don't liberal environmentalists see that they are winning the battles but losing the war? Missing the forest for the trees?

2007-01-22 09:25:08 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

looks like Theophile has taken a philosophy 101 course and wants to get some mileage out ot what he's learned, too bad he hasn't learned the biggest lesson yet- that's its all bull****.

2007-01-22 09:36:03 · update #1

nothing wrong with protecting the environment, but if thats your goal, then do it, don't stifle national change with your little local protests.

2007-01-22 09:37:21 · update #2

17 answers

They don't want to solve the problem. They want to keep it an issue so they can blame the opposition for not solving the problem. It's the way they look at most things.

2007-01-22 09:28:29 · answer #1 · answered by Fred C. Dobbs 4 · 2 4

Liberal are capable of only one thing. Whining. And whining and more and more whine.....

Liberals are the new fascist Nazi's.

They can't tolerate any opinion different than their's.

Look what they do to college speakers. They throw urine, pies, pull fire alarms, start fights, etc etc, to keep conservative's from speaking.

They want to pass laws to eliminate talk radio.

Liberals are intolerant, bigoted fascists, incapable of allowing free speech.

Islamicfascists have pledged to murder you and me.

Liberals want to help them.

Conservatives want to fight them.

Liberalism is ok when it is practiced.

But todays America's liberals, are not real liberals.

They are against change of all types and devoid of new idea's or solutions to problems.

Conservatives offered many new programs and initiatives the last 6 years, and liberals always fought against them, with never an original idea or solution to offer in return.


Liberals love it whan a woman murders a child that is unborn but hate it when criminals who rape, murder and commit attrocities get the death penality.

In reality the liberals of today are Stalinists and Marxists. Their belief that government is the solution to all problems and no wealth should be privately owned is what drives todays liberals.

They are also anti-American. They believe America is the worlds problem and the world would be better off without America in it.

Liberals are all for forsaking the poor weak and downtrodden if America's military is involved in keeping them alive, but insist on keeping America's poor weak and downtrodden in their miserable existance because of 'political correctness', (New Orleans and any urban city).

2007-01-22 10:04:11 · answer #2 · answered by Feelsgood 2 · 2 0

Wow, that is amazing that you know all the liberals! Every single one! I am a liberal and I will be happy to give you my opinion, bear in mind that I am not all of the liberals. Wind power is a fine idea, but not practical because it will not generate nearly enough power, same goes for geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric. Nuclear is no good because there is not enough uranium left on Earth to meet our needs for more than a few decades. Fossil fuels are no good because they emit the green house gases that are the cause of the problem. That leaves solar energy. Solar is completely clean and the potential power is many times more than enough to meet all of our energy needs. Solar technology does not work economically today as the photovoltaics are just too expensive, but that will improve over time.

2007-01-22 09:36:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Having a comfortable lifestyle is good for them but for everyone else no way
Ted Turner is an example


Ted Turner has been in the forefront of promoting extreme environmental causes, crusading relentlessly to stop oil drilling on public land in Colorado and on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Meanwhile, Ted is padding his pockets with oil money, money obtained from large-scale leases on his Vermejo Park Ranch in New Mexico. According to the Wall Street Journal, Turner now earns over 6 million a year from oil royalties, and new wells are being drilled on his ranch ever year. Ted's actions are speaking louder than his words!

2007-01-22 09:32:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I consider myself to be pretty liberal but I think solar energy is a great alternative. I do however think we are using natural resources too rapidly such as oil. I'm pretty much for anything safe as an alternative energy source. I hate being dependent on foreign nations for oil.

2007-01-22 09:32:05 · answer #5 · answered by mike j 3 · 4 0

Liberals fight alternative energy because it is easier to complain to get elected than work and come up with solutions.

They always say they are progressive, but they hold back:

-Alternative energy
-Funding for troops
-repealing the death tax
-repealing the marriage penalty

Are liberals progressive, I think not.

2007-01-22 09:52:45 · answer #6 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 1 0

um.. I think you have us confused with someone else.. sure. some environmentalists prevent the pip lines and drilling in Alaska.. but now you are generalizing that idea to other areas.. relax and enjoy the bio-fuels we are coming out with now until hydrogen and solar catch up (or maybe ethanol)

2007-01-22 09:33:16 · answer #7 · answered by pip 7 · 3 0

It makes you ask your self why Bush doesn't enable the warriors coffins to welcomed homestead to a heroes reception like they deserved instead of unloaded lower than the canopy of darkness if he had no longer something to disguise.

2016-10-15 23:05:46 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Unless you are God himself, your propostion is based on faulty logic. Regardless of the facts you present, 'always fight' would be interpreted as meaning that liberals opposing alternate energy is a scientific law or self-evident truth, which it is not. Don't confuse your opinion with reality (regardless of what you meant is true or not).

2007-01-22 09:34:06 · answer #9 · answered by Theophile 2 · 2 1

I presume you are telling me republican President Teddy Roosevelt was an idiot instead of a brilliant man who cared about protecting the environment for future generations. You're right, he was a wimp.

2007-01-22 09:35:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Hey wait... there's more than one kind of liberal.

The so called liberals to whom you refer are a subset - environmentalists.

I don't think Al Gore would fight alternative energy, and I'd call him liberal.

2007-01-22 09:29:52 · answer #11 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers