I will let the words of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate speak for themselves:
HARRY REID: “the one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.” [June 30, 2008.]
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
49 Responses to “Our fearless leader: Harry Reid, wimp”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
OK, I’m confused. I thought walking home in a cold rain to a house with no heat would make me sick.
Where is he talking about…
Weasels eat my flesh.
I’m guessing the people in Las Vegas and Reno are all for limiting air travel and cutting back on electricity (are all those light bulbs the curly ones?) and new construction.
How does this guy get elected in that state?
I’m with RickG, WIMMP!
{WIMMP = Wussified unInformed Moral Morass of Pomposity}
#3 Excellent point GJT. When do you think Vegas will go dark, or only half lighted, every other day?
Is it half lit?………. I know if you drink too much you can be half lit! hehe
Japanese translation: OneDimBulb
Homosexualality makes us sick too - AIDS
Lets outlaw that
This pretty much cinches it.
Democrats want the cost of gas and electricity to get to the point where we’re forced into mass transit and live in the cities within a couple miles of our jobs.
All of this guff where we get in our cars and go where we want to when we want to is a bad thing.
Harry Reid is a fossil. He’s making me sick. Can we stop using him, too? Please?
Peeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssse?
crap.
Forgot to end the blockquotes.
But you know what I mean.
“We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel” Demo-Nazi to English translation: You sheeple out there have entirely too much freedom and ability to support yourselves. We just can’t have that as it makes you too hard to control and it limits the extent to which we can expropriate your work product to “fluffen” our lifestyles. We, the leaders of this country, need to control every aspect of your lives as you are too stupid to do it yourselves and you prove it by re-electing the Demo-Nazis to the congress, you prove it by allowing us to bribe you with your own tax money, and you prove it by not tar and feathering us when we pull mega-scams on you such as global warming or the war on poverty.
How did this guy ever get elected Senate Majority leader? Talk about a No-Show when it comes to speaking intelligently. First there was Tom Dah and now Harry Who, this goes a lot show the quality of the Dimwit leadership. Both were from no-name states and they got to lead the majority. I understand the two Senators per state thing but why leadership from less populated states.
3 Tim
I spent last night in a hotel with four lamps. All four lamps had those curly bulbs. Only one of the four worked.
13. Boner
I think you’re right. This is so much about control. The Dems want us to live our lives a certain way and want to make us pay dearly if we don’t go along.
#14 hehe, rick said boner:>)
11. tedtam
Fixed
I half think the Democrats want to drive the economy into the ground before the election so they can beat up the Rpublicanswith it as an issue moreso than they already do.
I also believe that they’ve drunk too much enviro kool aid for their own good. I was channel surfing last night and ran across a talk show talking about Reid’s statement. One of the guests was saying that we need to get away from fossil fuels and start using more electric cars and buses. I wanted to scream at the tv to ask him exactly where he planned to get the extra electrical power that this would consume. He was talking like if we only had better batteries all would be fixed. As if the electricity magically appears wherever you put a wire and a battery.
If we want to have electric cars become the norm, there will have to be LOTS of infrastructure development that the enviros are not going to like: many more gigawatts (maybe terawatts, who knows?) worth of power plants built; lots more distribution lines to handle the extra load; more copper, lithium, aluminum, etc. being mined to build all these cars & power lines; more smelting and refining plants to refine the metals into usable forms.
What will the enviros go along with? Electricity is not something that can be generated where “those little brown people” live and imported; it must be generated near where it will be consumed. What kind of power plants will they go along with? Coal? makes us sick. Oil? ditto. Gas? ditto. Alcohol? we’re buring food. Wind? kills birds, ruins the view and the yachting areas of wealthy Democrats. Solar? would have to cover too much ground area. Hydro? kills fish & ruins rivers & streams? Tidal? areas amenable to tidal power are few and building the facilities would wreck delicate marine habitats. Nuclear? where will we put the waste?
O’Bama, Reid, et al. want us to abandon fossil fuels in the hopes that a technological breakthrough is imminent. They are never asked to explain exactly what they plan to do for the next five to many years until this breakthrough happens.
These people seem to think we’ll find some magic pixie dust somewhere.
This sort of thing makes me royally depressed. Because there are people out there that believe that. They would rather see us diminished and humbled and crawling to the bus station with our quarters instead of successful, with our heads up and going where we please, when we please.
They FEED off the country’s hard times. It’s like watching one of those fish that eats the algea off the tank wall? What are those called? Placostamus?
#17 - don’t forget how bad those electric car batteries are for the enviornment, and how NOT cost effective for the average american they are.
But I think that #9 has it. They want us to live within walking distance of wherever we need to go. And not NEED cars at all. Just GOVERNMENT provided mass transportation.
#18 stacy
They’re called bottom-feeding scum suckers. Don’t know what the fish are called…
#12
Exactly. The intent is to eliminate the middle class, ending up with only a serf class and a ruling class, and no upward mobility.
#19 StacyE What they want is for us to be slaves. They want us in debt up to our eyeballs, and totally dependant on government so that we can eat and exist. They want all the “little people” to be the same (equally poor) so that the “intellectual elite” and live in total pampered luxury at our expense.
Mr. Reid and his whole senate make me sick.
30 years of talking about an energy policy and they have come up with nothing. Now we are paying the price. The situation they caused is strapping Americans. We are beholding to people who hate us, we have to kiss up to them and now we’re in such bad shape that when the least little thing happens over in the middle east our fuel prices will go through the roof, our economy will tank and that will lead to unemployment.
People like Harry Reed and Al Gore will not be cutting back on energy consumption, that is just for you peons.
Is it not Harry Reed that is blocking the construction of Nuclear Power Plants so we do not have to burn fossil fuels?
If we had the technology to make affordable electric cars today we do not have the power plants available to plug them in.
You may not have to have to put up with Sen. Reid much longer. My theory is that in order to placate her base of support, Hillary made a deal to become majority leader with the Senators who supported BO. This makes all happy on the left, silences her fans and lets her hang on to the spotlight and increases her power in the Senate. Moral of story: be careful what you wish for……
Izzy
19 StacyE hit it . . . they want us to be EUROPEAN. They wanna push us down, hammer us down to were we accept the crumbs given us, want us living like the Dutch with a 60% tax rate and a bicycle.
Think about it: if they drive the price of fuel up to were only the “upper crust” can afford it, then it will last forever! And they make even more money by selling less.
They don’t care about this country, because they are above the mess. Ruling classes have always acted that way. Bet they were livid when the 5-4 vote came down upholding the Second Amendment as an individual freedom.
Thus…this explains Congress’ 18% approval rating.
RickG - I have a serious question. Are you against alternative energy because it is perceived to be a “liberal” issue? Even though it could save us money (in the long-run) and help out our environment?
17 - Maybe you should stay in a better hotel.
#20
ROFL I was thinking “Lawyers.”
#28 Houstondimwit:
1) A genuine “alternative” energy source would NOT take more energy to produce that what it yields as corn based ethanol does.
2) CO2 is NOT pollution! WATER VAPOR composes 95% of “greenhouse” gas in the atmosphere, the next is methane (CH4) the overwhelming majority of which is naturally occurring through seeps in ocean floor and in some land areas also via termite mounds. Substantially less than 5% of all suppossed greenhouse gas is CO2. Let’s not forget that CO2 is HEAVIER than air and tends to stay near the ground where it is ABSORBED BY PLANTS and converted to O2. The carbon is recycled back into the plant; amazing isn’t it.
3) The man made global warming myth is merely a world class scam to enrich scumbags like algore. there is no truth to it.
#30 bone
Don’t forget also that the absorption spectrum of water vapor pretty much covers that of CO2. What this means is that the water vapor is absorbing most of the same energy that the CO2 wants to. There is a finite amount of energy at any given wavelength; the water vapor gets pretty much all of it.
Think of it like you have a green filter on a flashlight. It absorbs all but the green light. If you hold up a red filter to the green light, hardly any gets through. Why? Because the green filter got everything but the green, so there is very little red light left for the red filter to pass. In this example the IR radiation everyone is wound up about would be represented by the blue (or yellow or whatever) light in the flashlight’s light, the green filter is water vapor, and the red filter is CO2.
#31 You are a plenty smart dude! Do you work with gas chromatagraphs or mass spectrometers or NASA or something?
#31 forgot to mention a pretty good demonstration of knowledge of photonics/physics.
Just a geek that reads way too much.
Houstondem
Alternative energy sources are a good thing, the only people I know actually blocking them are democrats. IE the wind farm that was blocked by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Teddy Kennedy.
Hydro electric, doubtful environmentalist will ever allow another dam for production of power. Nuclear is our best alternative to date but not if people like Harry Reid are involved.
Ethanol is not a viable substitute, Bio diesel would be good but we can expect no more than 5 percent of diesel to come from this source at best.
Electric for cars will probably be viable in the future assuming environmentalist get the heck out of way and let us build 60 - 80 power plants it will take to cover our normal electric needs along with the new demand for electric cars.
Meanwhile just what is the problem with drilling US oil resources and building a few refineries so the ordinary working class person can still access the American Dream?
Houstondem,
The global warming scare scam is a liberal issue. It’s a political scam designed to make people afraid of the most efficient and cost effective means of providing energy (that’s oil and nuclear), all for political control of the populace.
Environmentalists have succeeded in halting new oil exploration, drilling, and refinement for the past 30 years, all in the name of saving “Mother Earth”. We have $4 a gallon gas today and higher energy prices as a result. Those prices increase daily.
Thank you Democratic Party.
Now they want to shut down oil production completely. Harry Reid just said so, because it “makes us sick”. Talk about short sighted. Oil is the fuel for the entire world’s economy.
Shutting it down will do more harm than good to the patient, the human race. Oil is too vital to every country’s economy. Without it, cities will starve due to the shutdown of all distribution networks. They will freeze in the winter, because there is no means to warm their houses.
Simply stopping oil production is idiocy. It doesn’t surprise me that Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Village Idiot Party advocates this.
Anyone recalling Popeye cartoons of yore should remember the character Wimpy who always promised to pay you tomorrow for something given him today. Our government is composed of nothing but Wimpys.
… and it was ALWAYS on Tuesday. For we citizens, Tuesday never comes.
The inconvenient facts about global warming - from somebody with the credentials to back it up.
28 HD
No, I am not at all - i am in favor of any effective energy source. But 35 and 36 beat me to it, so assume I generally agree with them.
Texas is a pioneer in wind energy, but as trl3 points out, it is the Libs (Dems) who don’t want their landscape “spoiled” by this clean and potentially cheap source of energy.
I want electric cars, but the Dems will find a way to keep that from being a reality.
But I also think it is stupid to ignore resources we already have available - even if it gives little Harry a tummy ache.
Rick, don’t forget is was Bill Clinton who made the 2nd largest low sulfur coal fields in the world into a national park so they could not be excavated. This took away the competition to the Riady family, who owned the largest low sulfur coal fields in the world. All this was in exchange for the Riady’s help in funnelling $6 million in illegal campaign contributions to the DNC in 1996 when they were desparately short of money.
Of course after the election, the DNC returned the money and said oops we didn’t know, and the Riady’s were fined $8 million by the FEC - chicken fee for the removal of their competition - and since they were billionaires already.
I should point out that the $6 million in illegal campaign contributions came from Red Chinese intelligence. It was Bill Clinton who was the original Manchurian Candidate.
Here are the DOJ documents on the fines to the Riadys.
Part of the story on the other illegal campaign contributions can be found here.
A complete review of the stories from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative news outlet) are detailed here.
41 and 42 Big
But Bill Clinton is a Democrat. They are free to rape the environment because they purport to be the champions of it.
Of course, they are also willing to impose dire economic hardship on regular Americans becauses Ted Kennedy doesn’t want to see a windmill outside his multi-million dollar compound.
After all, we’re footing the bill for their energy costs, so why should they care.
But remember, they are the party of he people.
28. hd
Just to be open-minded, my wife went out and got some of those curly-Q light bulbs.
They suck.
#42 b45
It was payback for the guided missile stuff.
#43 rickg
The thing is, he can’t see them from his compound. They were to be installed where he likes to drive his boat.
But who really cares whether they can see them or not? Looking at a bunch of white windmills isn’t really that bad. The people in Denmark (a very green country) have them all over the place. After a while, they seem to blend in.
I think we should add a surcharge to all energy products and divide it up among those who are willing to have an energy-producing facility near them. This way, the Kennedys (Kennedies?) and the enviros can avoid having their delicate sensibilities harmed, but they have to put their money where their mouths are. Now, they get to stop everything, but we all pay. Let them do the paying in money and the rest of us will pay in kind.
46.
I like your proposal. Sort of an idiot tax for the libs.
#47 Native American and Rick, lets take this a step further. We need a fee for filing as a democrat to vote. The fee should be at least $50. We know if democrats win, they cost us tons of money. The fee is to offset the cost.
Native, exactly. Red China got their ICBM staging and guidance technology. Why is that so important?
Please read the information below, and you’ll understand the details. But here’s why it’s important. Before Bill Clinton’s treason of selling Red China our ICBM technology, they could launch a missile and hit Texas. With what Clinton sold them, they could launch a missile and hit the Southwest Freeway, Loop 610 interchange.
Before that, China could threaten our military in the Asian area with tactical nuclear missiles….short range designed for nearby military targets. But they did not have the capacity to destroy our nation. If they chose to attack our military near China, they would risk nuclear annihilation.
Because of Clinton’s treason, we can no longer defend Taiwan from invasion by Communist China, unless we are willing ourselves to face a massive, accurate nuclear attack. He removed the ability of future presidents to act from a position of strength in a strategic area of the world, and left the democracy of Taiwan, 23 million strong and one of the largest economies in the world, at risk of attack and subjugation by a brutal communist regime. Of course liberals could give a damn that Clinton did this.
In 1995, Taiwan’s President Lee Teng-hui accepted an invitation from his alma mater, Cornell University, to deliver a speech on “Taiwan’s Democratization Experience.” Seeking to diplomatically isolate Taiwan, the Communist China opposed such visits by Taiwanese leaders. It argued that Lee harbored pro-Taiwan independence sentiments and was therefore a threat to stability in the region. A year earlier, in 1994, when President Lee’s plane had stopped in Honolulu to refuel after a trip to South Africa, the U.S. government had refused Lee’s request for a visa. Lee had been confined to the military airfield where he landed, forcing him to spend a night on his plane. A U.S. State Department official called the situation “embarrassing” and Lee complained that Taiwan was being treated as a second-class country.
After Lee had decided to visit Cornell, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher assured PRC Foreign Minister Qian Qichen that a visa for Lee would be “inconsistent with [the U.S.'s] unofficial relationship [with Taiwan].” However, the humiliation from Lee’s last visit caught the attention of many pro-Taiwan figures in the U.S. and this time, the United States Congress acted on Lee’s behalf. In May 1995, resolutions asking the State Department to allow Lee to visit the U.S. passed the House 396 to 0 and the Senate 91 to 1. The State Department relented on May 22, 1995 and the PRC condemned the U.S. for ruining Sino-American relations.
Lee spent June 9- 10, 1995 in the U.S. as the Chinese state press branded him a “traitor” attempting to “split the motherland.”
PRC Military Response
The PRC government was furious over the US’s policy reversal and resorted to military intimidation. On July 7, 1995, the Xinhua News Agency announced missile tests to be conducted by the People’s Liberation Army and pointed out that this would endanger the peace and safety of the region. The PRC conducted tests from July 21 to 26 in an area only 60 kilometers north of ROC-held Pengchiayu Island. At the same time, the PRC mobilized forces in Fujian. In the later part of July and early August numerous commentaries were published by Xinhua and the People’s Daily condemning Lee and his cross-strait policies.
Another set of missile firings, accompanied by live ammunition exercises, occurred from August 15 to 25, 1995. Naval exercises in August were followed by amphibious exercises in November. Though many of these military activities were part of the normal PLA training regiment, this was the first time in many years that they were announced publicly.
The U.S. response was low key: the USS Nimitz passed through the Taiwan Strait in December 1995, a few months after the PLA’s tests. This transit, the first by a U.S. warship since 1976, was announced only six weeks later. Nevertheless, PLA General Xiong Guangkai warned a visiting American envoy, “In the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.”
Beijing intended to send a message to the Taiwanese electorate that voting for Lee Teng-hui in the 1996 presidential election meant war. A third set of PLA tests from March 8 to March 15 (just shortly preceding the March 23 election), sent missiles within 25 to 35 miles (just inside the ROC’s territorial waters) off the ports of Keelung and Kaohsiung. Over 70 percent of commercial shipping passed through the targeted ports, which were disrupted by the proximity of the tests. Flights to Japan and trans-Pacific flights were prolonged by ten minutes because airplanes needed to detour away from the flight path. Ships traveling between Kaohsiung and Hong Kong had to take a two-hour detour.
On March 8, the U.S. announced that it was deploying the Independence carrier battle group (CVBG), already stationed in the western Pacific, to international waters near Taiwan. On the following day, the PRC announced live-fire exercises to be conducted near Penghu from March 12-20. On March 11, the U.S. deployed the Nimitz CVBG, which steamed at high speed from the Persian Gulf. Tensions erupted further on March 15 when Beijing announced a simulated amphibious assault planned for March 18-25.
Sending two carrier battle groups showed not only a symbolic gesture towards the ROC, but a readiness to fight on the part of the U.S. The ROC government and Democratic Progressive Party welcomed America’s support, but staunch unificationist presidential candidate Lin Yang-kang and the PRC decried “foreign intervention.”
The PRC’s attempts at intimidation were counterproductive. Arousing more anger than fear, it (as most analysts believe) boosted Lee by 5% in the polls, earning him a majority as opposed to a mere plurality. The military tests and exercises also strengthened the argument for further U.S. arms sales to the ROC and led to the strengthening of military ties between the U.S. and Japan, increasing the role Japan would play in defending Taiwan.