It’s always interesting to see what you “values” voters actually value.

You’ve closed comments because you’ve been exposed.

Part 1 — We really should sacrifice economic growth (to save the planet for our grandkids).

Part 2 — But the rest of the world won’t let us do what we should.

Part 3 — So I’ll throw this crap out there about how we can do it anyway without stunting growth and you dummies will believe it.

Bryan called out the Part 3 “pipe dream” but didn’t take it to the logical conclusion.

The Corner concentrated on Parts 1 and 2 and ignored Part 3, leading to an incorrect conclusion.

Krauthammer seems not to have elaborated. The problem is that many believe the lie that “we can prove it’s good economics.” Since “it” refers to radical steps like full-blown compliance with Kyoto-like protocols and other top-down strategies to cut emissions (and therefore cut production, and, doh, cut economic growth), it’s not possible.

I notice you had no riposte to the BTU tax. Clinton, Gore, and enviros have always believed that stunting economic growth is necessary to save the planet. They just decided to put it off during their administration to save their sorry little skins when they saw that trying to do so, among other things, would end their political careers.

Oh but they were good at posturing, saying things like “we’ll try to comply with Kyoto anyway” (and not meaning it) after a Senate advisory vote hooted it down 95-0.

*******************

Oh, and I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that you might have made a hair-splitting point, as you claimed to dscott. You didn’t, because there is no valid reason to engage in a “fight against global warming,” as I explained. So YOU’RE the one dishonestly mischaracterizing the argument.

Given the intellectual dishonesty just detected (and in a response to another commenter, not to me — what a coward), I have absolutely no remorse in shutting down comments at this post. If you really want to waste your time commenting on this further, either find another post or start your own blog.

U R A Clunker, and surely no Tom D Bunker.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/31/billy-jeff-soothes-jitters-over-economic-slowdown-by-calling-for-economic-slowdown/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhN2E4NzQ0ODYyMWE5N2QzMWQwNjA3MDI3MjBjNDk=

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14437.html

Remember the 1993-1994 attempts at a BTU tax? That embodied his admin’s beliefs that production should be taxed, creating less of it, and slowing growth — but that’s OK, because Mother Earth would be better off.

When he saw that the BTU tax, and nationalized health care, would doom him to being a one-termer, he did what too many politicians do when faced with a choice between political survival and sticking to one’s principles — he abandoned his principles.

That’s all the evidence anyone with eyes and a memory needs that Clinton has always believed that slowing down economic growth in the name of environmental purity is desirable.

You can whine away all you want, but I’ve just shown that he has believed that as long as he’s been on the national stage. He probably always will believe that — though I doubt he’ll drop his guard long enough to tell us again any time soon.

dscott: Please read the two sentences immediately following the one you quoted. See the quote in context at #2. Even Tom acknowledged that I “might have a splitting-hairs point.” He just chose to ignore it because he knows what Clinton REALLY believes.

For some reason, you two believe that it is not dishonest to claim that the Clinton called for shrinking our economy, when he most certainly didn’t and hasn’t. Is it Clinton derangement syndrome?

Funny how every time when a Clinton is called on what they say, there is a predictable pattern of denial, drivers license for illegals would be another good example where they even do it with other liberals like the MSM and Obama.

What did Humpty Dumpty say?

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

Clinton has always believed that. The fact that it came out in the context it came out in is irrelevant.

He, Al Gore, and the enviro movement in general have ALWAYS believed that economic growth needs to be partially or fully sacrificed in the name of environmental purity.

I’m just glad he’s finally on the record as having said it, instead of pretending for all these years that it’s a have your cake and eat it too proposition.

So there’s nothing to be afraid of. You’re the one afraid to face up to the truth, which Tapper captured nicely, that the enviro/global warming movement is, at bottom, about emasculating capitalism.

“Clinton believes that, regardless of the context.”

So you cherry-pick a quote that flips his position 180 degrees. But according to you, he believes it even if he didn’t say it, so you’ll just let your smear stand. That’s dishonest and lazy.

Afraid to post my comments?

Clinton believes that, regardless of the context. That’s why Tapper got it right, and you’ve got it wrong. Period.

Add: Taranto got it right, too — “Mrs. Clinton will slow down the economy–but don’t worry, she’ll make up for it by creating an energy trust fund! Does this make you feel less anxious about America’s economic prospects under a new Clinton presidency?”

Clinton said just the opposite of what your post claims, and you know it.