About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Other Links

Quit Fucking Up My Planet
Author: BobR    Date: 2014-04-02 11:01:32

I am done. I am done with the assholes who are fucking up my planet. Yes, I said MY planet. It's my planet, it's your planet it's EVERYBODY's planet. We all live here; we all breathe the same air; we all drink the same water. I understand the concepts of "sharing" and "common good" are anathema to these right-wing douche-nozzles, but it's the reality of this existence. When they purposely pollute and prevent legislation to curtail polluters just to say "NYAH NYAH" to "tree-huggers", they are fucking up the planet for all of us.

Rachel Maddow described two instances on her show Monday night. There was a study in Nebraska that got derailed because Republicans wanted "climate change" language removed, causing the scientists who were going to do it to bail rather than compromise their intellectual integrity. In Virginia, it was the same thing. Republicans don't "believe" in global warming, as if it was a religion instead of sound science. They would rather maintain their political stance, even if it means the planet goes to Hell.

Here's the thing about religion: you can believe whatever you want, so long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on me, and don't try to make me live by the arbitrary rules you feel your religion has set for you. When these idiots treat science and religion as equals, however, then they doing just that. When it comes to climate science, their "beliefs" translate into actions (or lack of it) that push their beliefs onto the rest of us. It would be one thing if they could be forced to live in a world full of flooding coastlines, droughts, and extreme weather without affecting the rest of us, but that's just not possible.

I don't get what it is about science that turns Republicans into deliberately obtuse jackoffs. Does the certainty of science scare them? Do people smarter than them scare them? Does the notion that the evidence is on the side of hippies and liberals infuriate them?

I have yet to figure out whether they hate science because the evidence flies in the face of their literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether their fossil-fuel funders are buying their loyalty to prevent solar and wind from horning in on their profits (why they don't just put up wind and solar generators instead of oil rigs is beyond me). Whatever their motivation, their twisted sense of loyalty is ruining it for the rest of us who are simply trying to make things better and prevent a global environmental meltdown.

It pisses me off. It's like the adage "Don't like abortions? Don't get one"; just don't force me to live by your own misguided morality. If you Republicans can figure out a way to put a dome over your pollution and keep it in your own neighborhood, then go for it. Until then - quit fucking up my planet.
 

37 comments (Latest Comment: 04/02/2014 21:02:41 by Will in Chicago)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by wickedpam on 04/02/2014 12:44:02
Morning

Not all who are religious or spiritual hate science, in fact I think science deepens my beliefs in something bigger going on. Seems to me those who fear it are the neo-Christians, they don't want to think past the words on a page. I pity them that they can't see the beauty of it all.

Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 12:58:16
A little testy are we, Bobber? Well said.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 13:20:24
good fucking morning to you too!

Comment by Scoopster on 04/02/2014 13:22:16
Mornin' all..

So TIL that April 11 is an annual anti-bullying Day of Silence. And of course, that means the whackjob christian groups are planning to protest. Because we all know Jesus would kick some scrawny kid's ass and steal their lunch money.

Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 13:54:04
Bobber, are you fucking fed the fuck up?

Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 13:55:32
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..

So TIL that April 11 is an annual anti-bullying Day of Silence. And of course, that means the whackjob christian groups are planning to protest. Because we all know Jesus would kick some scrawny kid's ass and steal their lunch money.



This is educational malpractice, it really is, and it really should be medical malpractice,” she said of gay rights advocacy, “especially when you have HIV rates and the other hazards we know that are out there for kids.




Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 14:10:43
The fuck? SCOTUS just made Citizens united even more odious.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 14:11:25
‏@JeffreyToobin 1m
Citizens United expanded. Supreme Court today strikes down overall contribution limits to political campaigns. Breaking. #scotus

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 14:22:55
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 14:27:27
Charles Keating Jr is dead.

Just another thing that maverick gave America.



The collapse of Lincoln had links to several U.S. senators, who came to be known as "The Keating Five" after they were accused of lobbying federal banking regulators on behalf of Keating. He was a heavy contributor to their campaigns.

Senators John McCain, a Republican from Arizona; Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat from Arizona; Donald Riegle, a Democrat from Michigan; John Glenn, a Democrat from Ohio; and Alan Cranston, a Democrat from California, were investigated by the Senate ethics committee in 1990.




Comment by wickedpam on 04/02/2014 14:41:39
Quote by Raine:
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.



I just....I don't even know any more. We really are going to be the UCA (United Corporations of America) aren't we.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 14:46:31
As much as I love Soros and his donations to Center for American Progress, etc, I would REALLY like to see him start to play by this newly created Game.

I am so pissed. SO DAMN PISSED.

Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 15:02:15
Quote by Raine:
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.



When the history of the Roberts Court is written it will be very short. WORST.SUPREME.COURT.EVER.

Worst.Supreme.Court.Justice.EVER will always be Roger B. Taney. Look him up...



Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:07:42
List of Justices who voted to strike caps:
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia

List of Justices who voted to keep caps::
Elena Kagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor

The first list: Republican Nominees.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:09:22
You know, the supreme court just deemed that PAC's are a very exclusive bank.



Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:11:53
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.



When the history of the Roberts Court is written it will be very short. WORST.SUPREME.COURT.EVER.

Worst.Supreme.Court.Justice.EVER will always be Roger B. Taney. Look him up...

Roberts isn't doing much better.

It was Robert's court that gutted the voting rights act.

We're going so damn backwards I'm getting sea sick (with a touch of vertigo). Sigh.


Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:21:25
And may I add: I hate these fucking conservative asshole in the Court.

See PP v. Casey.

AT LEAST IN 1992 THEY TRIED TO THREAD THE PHUCKING NEEDLE.

They aren't even bothering now.

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:30:29
It just pooped into my head that the SCOTUS ruling decided that we can have segregated banks, also known as PAC's. You can make deposits, but only if you meet a very specific admission process, you can't make a withdrawal. Only, and I mean only, the bank owners get to decide who get's the banks money.

That's not a first amendment POV ( As SCOTUS determined) it's an equal protection issue. See: 14th amendment.

SCOTUS just made some people more equal than others.This time, instead of race -- it's money.



Comment by Scoopster on 04/02/2014 15:30:53
Quote by Raine:
And may I add: I hate these fucking conservative asshole in the Court.

See PP v. Casey.

AT LEAST IN 1992 THEY TRIED TO THREAD THE PHUCKING NEEDLE.

They aren't even bothering now.

At least they didn't completely blow up the needle and use Thomas' concurrence as the base decision. If you want some truly scary reading, that's it.

Comment by wickedpam on 04/02/2014 15:36:14
Quote by Raine:
It just pooped into my head that the SCOTUS ruling decided that we can have segregated banks, also known as PAC's. You can make deposits, but only if you meet a very specific admission process, you can't make a withdrawal. Only, and I mean only, the bank owners get to decide who get's the banks money.

That's not a first amendment POV ( As SCOTUS determined) it's an equal protection issue. See: 14th amendment.

SCOTUS just made some people more equal than others.This time, instead of race -- it's money.



Orwell was right - "Some animals are more equal then others."


Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 15:59:31
WHAT?

It's Not A Sled Anymore: Remaking A Cinematic
ClassicA poor boy rises to great power as a media mogul, only to die longing for the simple things of his childhood. Does that storyline sound familiar? Well, it should. It's the plot of a 1941 classic that tops many lists of the greatest films ever made — and that has now been remade by an unlikely Canadian auteur.


Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 16:01:53
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.



When the history of the Roberts Court is written it will be very short. WORST.SUPREME.COURT.EVER.

Worst.Supreme.Court.Justice.EVER will always be Roger B. Taney. Look him up...

Roberts isn't doing much better.

It was Robert's court that gutted the voting rights act.

We're going so damn backwards I'm getting sea sick (with a touch of vertigo). Sigh.


Taney court: Dread Scott. Worst.ruling.ever. Citizen's United 2nd. A CLOSE second.


Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 16:02:41
Quote by Raine:
WHAT?

It's Not A Sled Anymore: Remaking A Cinematic
ClassicA poor boy rises to great power as a media mogul, only to die longing for the simple things of his childhood. Does that storyline sound familiar? Well, it should. It's the plot of a 1941 classic that tops many lists of the greatest films ever made — and that has now been remade by an unlikely Canadian auteur.



Comment by Scoopster on 04/02/2014 16:03:03
Quote by Raine:
WHAT?

It's Not A Sled Anymore: Remaking A Cinematic
ClassicA poor boy rises to great power as a media mogul, only to die longing for the simple things of his childhood. Does that storyline sound familiar? Well, it should. It's the plot of a 1941 classic that tops many lists of the greatest films ever made — and that has now been remade by an unlikely Canadian auteur.

saw this yesterday.. well played, NPR!

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 16:05:15
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
To say this is bad is an understatement.

the electorate was just sold off to the highest bidder.



When the history of the Roberts Court is written it will be very short. WORST.SUPREME.COURT.EVER.

Worst.Supreme.Court.Justice.EVER will always be Roger B. Taney. Look him up...

Roberts isn't doing much better.

It was Robert's court that gutted the voting rights act.

We're going so damn backwards I'm getting sea sick (with a touch of vertigo). Sigh.


Taney court: Dread Scott. Worst.ruling.ever. Citizen's United 2nd. A CLOSE second.

My point being that today's ruling just piled on Citizens United.

and while agree about the awfulness of Dred Scott, money has now become the new white privledge.


Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 16:36:17
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Raine:
WHAT?

It's Not A Sled Anymore: Remaking A Cinematic
ClassicA poor boy rises to great power as a media mogul, only to die longing for the simple things of his childhood. Does that storyline sound familiar? Well, it should. It's the plot of a 1941 classic that tops many lists of the greatest films ever made — and that has now been remade by an unlikely Canadian auteur.

saw this yesterday.. well played, NPR!



Well done!

Comment by TriSec on 04/02/2014 16:53:17
My tooth is out and I am gingerly eating a scrambled egg.

Comment by Mondobubba on 04/02/2014 17:00:52
Quote by TriSec:
My tooth is out and I am gingerly eating a scrambled egg.



Yay?


Comment by livingonli on 04/02/2014 17:18:09
Good day, folks. So, basically we're just going to let the Koch Brothers and Shelton Adelson run amuck and destroy the country. Since they now have to fight the trend that most young people don't vote Republican anymore.

Comment by clintster on 04/02/2014 18:35:05
Quick reminder for all of y'all: today is World Autism Awareness Day.
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/files/2011/03/Light-bulb1.jpg


Comment by trojanrabbit on 04/02/2014 18:43:03
Comment by wickedpam on 04/02/2014 18:57:04
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Well, it's official...sorta



The Pickup Truck is moving to New Hampshire



so he's carpetbagging - classy

Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 19:15:32
Comment by wickedpam on 04/02/2014 19:29:44



aawww cuddles

Comment by Will in Chicago on 04/02/2014 19:32:08
Hi, bloggers. First, some good news. My sister-in-law has a new grandson named Hunter who was born today. (This is from her son from her first marriage.) The baby boy and Mom are doing well.

As for the blog, I agree with Mala. There are many religious liberals and moderates who take the environment and climate change seriously. The religious literalists and fundamentalists trouble me to no end, as they act like they have a monopoly on faith. Add to the fact that they view those with different beliefs as heretics or worse, and you can imagine the warm welcome I get from them. (There are Orthodox Jews who don't consider my rabbi to be a rabbi.)

As for the Supreme Court, I am disappointed but not surprised. We have several justices who believe that corporations are people. Corporations are actually superior to people, in their eyes. As someone should go there, how does the attitude of the majority on the Supreme Court not fit the following definition. from Laurence W. Britt on the 14 points of fascisl\m.:

. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.


Comment by Raine on 04/02/2014 19:43:40


Comment by Will in Chicago on 04/02/2014 21:02:41
John Nichols of the Nation has an interesting piece on today's Supreme Court ruling.

With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy
John Nichols on April 2, 2014 - 11:14 AM ET

With the ruling in the McCutcheon case—where the court was actively encouraged to intervene on behalf of big-money politics by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky—a 5-4 court majority (signing on to various opinions) has ruled that caps on the total amount of money an individual donor can give to political candidates, parties and political action committees are unconstitutional. In so doing, says U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, says the court has further tipped the balance of power toward those who did not need any more influence over the affairs of state.

"It is far too often the case in Washington that powerful corporate interests, the wealthy, and the well-connected get to write the rules," says Baldwin, "and now the Supreme Court has given them more power to rule the ballot box by creating an uneven playing field where big money matters more than the voice of ordinary citizens.”

The think-tank Demos says the high court's ruling has "overturned nearly forty years of campaign finance law," which is certainly true. But the court has done much more than that. By going to the next extreme when it comes to questions of money in politics, the justices who make up the court's activist majority have opted for full-on plutocracy—and it is unimaginable that this week's ruling will be the last assault by the justices who make up that majority upon the underpinnings of democracy.

Those justices have made their political intent entirely clear. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito in a support of an opinion that rejects the notion that limits on the total amount of money that can be given by wealthy donors—such as the billionaire Koch Brothers or casino mogul Sheldon Adelson—are needed to prevent corruption. Justice Clarence Thomas went even further, writing an opinion that all limits on political contributions are unconstitutional. The extreme stance of Thomas—which would overturn the high court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld basic contribution limits, may signal the next frontier for the court..


Show All

Rev 3.7; Copyright � 2007-2017 by BobberBlogs�