Saturday, July 16, 2011

I Think I've Heard This Before

Laura Ingraham scores with a mash-up of the best hits of Barack Obama...and Jimmy Carter:



It's bad enough to hear it again, what's worse is having to live through it again.

h/t Hot Air.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

15 comments:

wally said...

Bob, I couldn't agree more! Suggesting that people make sacrifices--the nerve! We must engorge ourselves. It's the American way!

7/16/2011 03:55:00 PM
Bob said...

@wally: While Jimmy Carter had a personal habit of asceticism, the same can't be said for Obama, of whom it was reported had the White House thermostats turned way up soon after he moved in, causing long-time WH employees to suffer in the warmed building (this in winter, mind you, not summer). Al Gore's conspicuous consumption of carbon hardly needs mention.

And I've noticed that when Democrats suggest that people make sacrifices those suggestions very quickly become demands and then laws, with low-capacity toilets, incandescent lightbulb bans and other such overreach as the result.

7/17/2011 01:21:00 AM
wally said...

"Incandescent light bulb bans" is more Fox-News type hogwash. I can't believe you keep falling for it.

7/17/2011 11:19:00 AM
Bob said...

@wally: and low-capacity toilets are hogwash, too? I notice you didn't mention those.

7/17/2011 12:23:00 PM
wally said...

...and I notice you didn't refute my incandescent light bulb statement. It'll take me a little while to get to the toilets--doing your homework for you is not high on my list of priorities.

I'm guessing, though, that in the utopian world of Bob, we would have no seat belts, no airbags, unlimited toxins in our foods, polluted lakes, etc., etc. Not for me, thanks. I prefer to live in the world as it is, and not in your paradise.

7/17/2011 01:05:00 PM
Bob said...

"I'm guessing, though, that in the utopian world of Bob, we would have no seat belts, no airbags, unlimited toxins in our foods, polluted lakes, etc.,"

Straw man argument. I said nothing about safety-related or health-related infringements, only instances in which Americans are thought to be "wasting" too much water or electricity, and thus must be punished/taught a lesson by government.

7/17/2011 01:09:00 PM
wally said...

Pollution wastes water, if you want to nit-pick.

The auto industry didn't get serious about fuel efficiency until government prodded them.

What is the difference to you IN PRINCIPLE between governmental intervention for health/safety reasons and energy conservation reasons?

7/17/2011 06:49:00 PM
Bob said...

@wally: "The auto industry didn't get serious about fuel efficiency until government prodded them."

I would disagree. Fuel efficiency was always improving from the time of the earliest automobiles. What really triggered fuel efficiency upgrades in the industry was artificial shortage of gasoline caused by the oil embargo of the 1970's and corresponding high prices.

"What is the difference to you IN PRINCIPLE between governmental intervention for health/safety reasons and energy conservation reasons?"

Ensuring the safety and security of its citizens is the primary role of a government. It's why we have a military and police. Health/safety of products sold to citizens is thus a legitimate role of government.

While energy/resources are theoretically finite, in practical terms governments cannot predict with any accuracy advances in technology and resource development that would justify choking off supply as a so-called "public good."

7/17/2011 07:27:00 PM
wally said...

What the embargo of the early 70's caused was a run on foreign cars. It wasn't until the late 70's, when the government issued fuel economy standards, that the industry got serious. This is not me talking, it's Wikipedia.

The government has long been in the business of supporting technological directions it considers beneficial, both with subsidies. which I've never heard you complain about, and regulations.

Many people on your side of the fence still complain bitterly about having to wear seat belts or helmets, have fluoride in their drinking water, inoculate themselves against disease, etc. They apparently don't draw the distinctions you do. But I'm glad to hear it.

7/17/2011 09:34:00 PM
Bob said...

@wally: of the four government encroachments you mention (seat belts, motorcycle helmets, fluoride and vaccinations), only the last falls under what I would call a public good.

The other three are more along the lines of nanny-state encroachment upon individual liberty. I have no objection to the existence of either seat belts or motorcycle helmets, only to their required use under penalty of law. With seat belts, moreover, the US public was sold a bill of goods, told that an unbuckled seat belt would never (nevah evah) be used as sole pretext for a traffic stop, which of course has not turned out to be the case.

7/17/2011 11:37:00 PM
wally said...

Why should vaccinations be mandatory?

7/18/2011 01:31:00 AM
Bob said...

@wally: The possibility of eradicating diseases through use of universal vaccination is proven, e.g. smallpox. Until the "autism caused by MMR jab" scare of the 90's, diseases such as measles and pertussis (whooping cough) were well under control. Now they are again spreading through a population that no longer trusts vaccination. Autism isn't fatal; measles and pertussis often are.

7/18/2011 03:08:00 AM
wally said...

I know I've gone far afield by now, but it's interesting to note that one possible "unintended consequence" of eradicating smallpox is that any natural defense our bodies might have to it is rapidly fading. If one of those test tubes in which the last remaining strain resides falls into the hands of al Qaeda or the Tea Party, look out!

7/18/2011 08:54:00 AM
Bob said...

@wally: the Tea Party? Now you're just baiting me for your amusement. It's the Left in this country that is violent, not the Tea Party.

7/18/2011 08:57:00 AM
wally said...

What's wrong with baiting you?

7/18/2011 09:15:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)