Posted by Tina
The President always signals his true intentions. He has said that he will get his way by going around Congress in every way he possibly can (Legal or not…we notice). One method he uses is to grant unrestrained powers to the heads of agencies like the EPA. New EPA regulations have the power to effectively disarm the citizenry. You can keep your guns…good luck getting ammo!
Alan West is sounding the warning and the Washington Times reports:
Come 2014, all ammunition sold to civilian gun-owners in America will have to be imported, a result of President Obama’s crackdown on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions and accompanying harsh Environmental Protection Agency regulations, said former Florida congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West.
And for defenders of the Second Amendment, that means higher ammo prices are likely on the way — a situation Mr. Allen writes on his blog, AllenBWest.com, is akin to a federal power-grab on guns, albeit through the backdoor.The situation stemmed from the shutdown of The Doe Run Lead Smelter in Missouri, a business that’s been around since 1892 but due to close at the end of this month. Mr. West said it’s due to new air standards placed on the company that would have cost $100 million to achieve. The significance is that Doe Run was the last lead smelting plant in the country — leaving America no choice but to turn to overseas operations to produce lead bullets.
“[This] will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control,” Mr. West warned, Breitbart.com reported. “It seems this is fully in concert with the U.S. Military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.
Radical, damaging regulation coming out of the EPA will result in many downside realities for Americans. Expensive, hard to get ammo is one such result. The loss of another business and the jobs it supplies is another. We can be assured that these draconian regulations will affect other businesses as well…meaning fewer jobs, higher prices, a shrinking tax base, and a lot of shared misery.
Central control means less power and less wealth and buying power for every American. that is the shared misery reality of leftist government.
No doubt about it. Democrats want a citizenry unarmed, docile, and easily manipulated. One step at a time. California has already effectively made hunting illegal.
Progresssives fear the poor being able to defend themselves.
Pie, the democrats are well on their way to success. The 2nd Amendment has been shot full of holes by liberals, in CA especially. I was in Walmart the other day and happened by the sporting goods dept. There was virtually no ammo on the shelf and those that were were marked up almost twice the price from a year ago. An employee told me they can’t fill the orders and when they do get something in, it flies off the shelf. Forget trying to buy .22 bullets…they are going out of existence because they are lead and CA prohibits lead bullets now. Even though there is no science behind the ban! It doesn’t matter, they want what they want.
Re #2 Jack :
Over the past four months I purchased all the hand gun ammunition I’ll need for quite some time online by tracking prices and buying in bulk. There still are a few cartridges that I would like to have and cannot find, but I have pretty much covered the spectrum I am interested in shooting.
I have paid 5 to 15 cents a round over what prices once were before the last scare/NSA buy up, yet prices can still range as much a 2x. (Which I, of course, decline to purchase.) The prices have since dropped a little *for some dealers* and you can save as much a $50 on a 1000 round box over what the cost was a month or so ago. As such I kick myself a bit now and then.
If you follow Midway USA, Target Sports USA, LAX, Able’s, Cabela’s, Bulk Ammo and use ammo search engines you can compare and find fairly reasonable prices in bulk or box. (Target Sports USA has free shipping for bulk purchases for 200, 500, and 1000 rounds depending.)
I utilize the following ammo search engines as part of my price tracking —
http://www.slickguns.com/category/ammo
http://www.ammonow.com/handgun_ammunition.html
http://ammoseek.com/
http://armsbot.com/
http://findmeammo.com/
http://www.gunbuddy.com/
http://www.wikiarms.com/
California’s lead bullet ban does not go into effect until July, 2019 and does not prohibit range use (I think).
Banning lead shot for hunting may make sense since a lot of it may end up as bird feed, evidently, and birds do die of lead poisoning. How significant a contribution lead shot is to bird poisoning and the number of fowl affected is debatable, but the debate is now dead thanks to the Democrat cabal controlling this state.
What is sheer lunacy is that the ban includes not just shot but large caliber lead bullets too. Such bullets are used for bigger game and for the most part end up being removed by the hunter and taken home if not carefully examined and stored for reference. Banning those bullets is just more over-reaching nonsense Democrats are so famous for.
Pie: “Banning lead shot for hunting may make sense since a lot of it may end up as bird feed, evidently, and birds do die of lead poisoning.”
LOL…by this logic, and to be consistent by the progressive standard, all wind farm installations in California must be immediately dismantled and removed! Wind farms are killing off birds, and bats, in the thousands!
CS Monitor:
Power and control are the motivating factors. Common sense or even environmental concerns are not!
Re #4 Tina :
What part of “may” and the rest of my statement do you not understand? No matter.
I take it you are not convinced that lead shot is a significant environmental hazard to fowl (except those that get shot, of course), at least not compared to windmills. Neither am I.
The last time I checked, windmills do not have a “hunting” season and are pretty indiscriminate.
This would be the same Alan West who ludicrously claimed that around 80 members of Congress were members of the Communist Party, right?
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/11/allen-west/allen-west-says-about-80-house-democrats-are-membe/
I can’t find a single source for this claim that doesn’t trace back to this hateful McCarthyite. Why do you continue to believe people like this?
Tina: “LOL…by this logic, and to be consistent by the progressive standard, all wind farm installations in California must be immediately dismantled and removed! Wind farms are killing off birds, and bats, in the thousands!”
Except that wind farms kill less birds than any other source of energy.
Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.
Nuclear plants kill about 0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)
Fossil-fueled power stations kill about 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind)
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/26/wind-farm-bird-deaths-fossil-fuel-nuclear-bird-deaths/
So actually, by this logic, we should keep the wind farms and get rid of the nuclear and coal plants.
Pie, is it too much to ask for some consistency? I think not…and you are right in your assumptions about my position. We are bordering on certifiable with the current EPA zealots.
Give ’em time Chris, they haven’t even begun to build the number of farms they want yet.
I would also like to know how this guy arrived at his numbers. The greens haven’t exactly made themselves a reputation for honesty or good science.
When you consider the amount of power generated by wind farms when the wind isn’t blowing it’s hardly a fair comparison since the other forms work continuously and reliably hour after hour after hour.
So far we haven’t realized much revenue from taxation of wind companies compared to other forms of energy either…in fact we are paying through the nose for the privilege of killing even endangered birds. A recent article in Forbes, “Wind Energy Get’s Away With Murder,” paints a much more complete picture of the damage, including this amazing bit of information:
Nor do we really need regulations that restrict lead use in ammunition.
Who will be left to control the control freaks when their anti-gun frenzy takes its final toll?
And Chris…it wouldn’t surprise me if the official communist site decided not to list members of Congress who hold membership. I can tell you that about ten years ago, give or take, the list did include members of Congress.
Sorry for moving away from the subject of the original post guys.
Re #8 Tina :
Pie, is it too much to ask for some consistency?
The notion that I am inconsistent in any of the above is baloney. If you want to stick with that false narrative and inaccurate reading of my post it is no skin off my nose. You are merely wrong. Besides, just because the EPA has gone hog wild in so many areas does not necessarily mean that the federal ban on lead shot for hunting waterfowl is a bad thing.
Nevertheless it is a ridiculous and inconsistent law. As the law states, you cannot use lead shot on ducks, geese, and coots but under the exact same conditions and over water you can use lead shot on moorhens, rails, snipe, dove, and even skeet. There is the EPA and the federal government for you.
Now that is an example of inconsistency, much like the fining of oil companies for bird deaths but not wind farms.
“There is quite simply no sound science that shows the use of traditional ammunition has harmed wildlife populations or that it presents a health risk to humans who consume game taken with such ammunition,” wrote a federal court in 2013 which halted an effort by the EPA to BAN ALL AMMUNITION containing lead. My understanding is that the EPA law was a result of pressure from gun control groups hoping to use the ruse of environmentalism to “make an end run around the Second Amendment” right of access to ammunition.
Yet there is evidence that lead poisoning by lead shot appears in California condors and other scavengers as well as dabbling waterfowl. Is that evidence conclusive and overwhelming? I dunno. To paraphrase what I wrote above, lead shot MAY be a problem. The USGS seems to think it is significant, but then they also think AGW is too despite evidence to the contrary and the abject failure of climate models and the horrendous abuse and degradation of the scientific method by AGW proponents.
I do agree that EPA zealots are certifiable. At least we have common ground there, no?
Re #7 Chris :
I am not buying those figures estimated by “environmental scientists” (which to me seems an oxymoron). That is one study and evidently it has not be subject to close scrutiny and peer review.
The figures are far too convenient.
Re #7 Chris, addenda to the above:
Besides, that “study” is from an associate professor at a LAW SCHOOL. Touting this study as fact is like touting the many deeply flawed AGW studies as fact. There is a huge pile of that garbage out there that threatens to forever blacken the eye of science. The scientific method may already be dead, executed by lawyers, politicians, activists and so-called environmentalists.
Pie: “The notion that I am inconsistent in any of the above is baloney. If you want to stick with that false narrative and inaccurate reading of my post it is no skin off my nose.”
Woah!
Pie …back down big guy. I did not mean inconsistency from you. I meant from environmentalist loons who have been very hypocritical regarding the negative impact to the environment their pet projects represent!
We are in agreement and I thank you for the added information that I had not been privy to heretofore.
Now I’m out. G’night! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Pie: “Now that is an example of inconsistency, much like the fining of oil companies for bird deaths but not wind farms.”
But the government has fined wind farms for bird deaths, though the first time was only a week ago:
http://grist.org/news/wind-energy-company-fined-1-million-over-bird-deaths/
If you don’t believe the numbers I provided claiming that wind farms kill less birds than coal or oil plants, then let’s see some different numbers. You’re arguing that wind farm proponents are being hypocritical because wind farms kill birds, but that argument only makes sense if they’re doing so at a higher rate than other energy sources. But you and Tina don’t even seem to understand that, as you showed no interest in comparing bird deaths by wind farms to any other cause, nor did you show an awareness that you needed to do that for your argument to make sense.
Tina: “And Chris…it wouldn’t surprise me if the official communist site decided not to list members of Congress who hold membership.”
^^^The death of facts, ladies and gentlemen. By this logic, a Democratic senator can baselessly accuse 80 Republican members of the House of being part of a white supremacist party, and then use the defense that “well, of course they would hide it if they were!” Alan West made a baseless accusation with no evidence. That is wrong. Period.
“I can tell you that about ten years ago, give or take, the list did include members of Congress.”
Prove it.
Re Tina #13:
Ooops, my bad. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Re Chris #14: “Blah, blah, blah … But you and Tina don’t even seem to understand that, as you showed no interest in comparing bird deaths by wind farms to any other cause, nor did you show an awareness that you needed to do that for your argument to make sense… blah, blah blah”
Have you ever considered arguing the point and issue instead of attacking the person you pathetic and obnoxious doofus from progressive hell? OK, fine, let me stuff your self-aggrandizing, brain-bent, ludicrous nonsense right back in you face. (As you already know, I have no problem slinging the profuse excrement you sling in these pages right back into your yap.)
Bite me you silly scold jackass. What planet are you on? I just did address the subject of wind farms by questioning your “facts”. Of course that the study you cited comes from an lawyer associate professor at a law school makes no difference. I was merely pulling another “Chris” joke by imitating one of your many prolific logical and rhetorical fallacies, numb nuts.
Good science is good science no matter what the source. I question whether the study you cite is good science. Evidently that annoys you. Sorry. (John Belushi style.)
You just do not like that I have a sharper, keener, more critical and educated scientific background than a base, politically motivated, snide activist chump like you.
Anytime you care to engage in a civil discourse, I am game just as soon as you begin by ceasing to be such a complete ass.
OK, Pie. I’m sorry. I do have a tendency to come across as smug and arrogant here at times (OK, most of the time), and I think that has not been conducive to healthy debate. I can see why you would respond in kind.
I do not believe that your argument is well supported, however. If I understand the argument, you are saying that environmentalist progressives are being hypocritical by supporting wind farms because wind farms kill a lot of birds. However, I think that argument is only fair if wind farms kill more birds than other sources of energy. If wind farms actually end up killing less birds than oil and coal plants, than it makes perfect sense for environmentalists to support them, because they are less environmentally damaging than those other sources.
You may be right that the numbers I cited are not valid. I have not looked deeply enough into them to know for certain whether the data is reliable. That is a failing on my part, and I have criticized many here before for similar failings. In that way I have been hypocritical.
However, I have not seen any numbers that contradict these figures. I have also not seen conservative critics of wind farms ever make a comparison between bird deaths caused by wind farms and other causes of bird deaths. This makes their arguments unconvincing to me.
That doesn’t mean the data I cited must be correct; it is totally possible that wind farms actually do cause more bird deaths than other sources of energy. That’s just not an argument I’ve ever seen conservative critics make.
Lol..LOL I am busting at the seams!
No the darn Military bought too much stock pile with Homeland security but why not just hand the keys over to the Koch brothers, seize all property and give it to the new masters
Thanks Obama everything is your fault
To go back to the original topic of this post, Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze has decided to fact check Alan West’s claims, and have found them to be false. Make of that what you will; I really don’t get why The Blaze does anything it does, since sometimes it promotes conspiracy theories and sometimes it debunks them.
Writes the Blaze:
“President Obama had little, if anything, to do with the longstanding battle between the EPA and the Doe Run Company. Further, if one is to take ammunition manufactures at their word, it does not appear that the Herculaneum closure will have any affect on the availability of ammunition in the United States.
Now it could be that the Obama administration is cheering the closure of the facility and the possible message it sends. But that’s a maybe. And since many are saying it won’t affect the gun industry, it’s hard to know what message that would be. In short, there is too much that we don’t know.
“Could the lack of primary lead create a little more demand for recycled lead? Sure, but how much is unknown,” the Sierra Bullet Company said on its website. “Could this increase in demand also create an increase in price? Sure, but again, by how much is unknown at this time.”
So where did West get his information? The post that appears on West’s site is based almost entirely on an article from a site called noisyroom.net. The West post originally appeared without attribution to noisyroom.net.
West’s staff later updated his site to include citation to the original blog, telling TheBlaze in an email that the “omission of attribution” was an editorial mistake.
TheBlaze contacted the author of the original article, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, and she confirmed that portions of her article were used without her knowledge. However, she said in an email that West’s staff apologized to her for the oversight, adding that the apology was “sufficient and gracious.”
As for where Monroe-Hamilton got her information, she clarified “the piece was more my opinion than anything else.”
Michele Hickford, the editor in chief of West’s site, responded to an inquiry from TheBlaze in an email: “Per Terresa’s [Monroe-Hamilton] POV the fact is the plant didn’t close under Bush, it is closing under Obama. Allen believes that closing this plant and others will set precedent and is intended to lead to gun control and infringement of the Second Amendment.”
Hickford added: “There’s just too much ‘coincidence’ with all these events.””
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/02/rumor-check-did-obama-close-a-lead-plant-in-order-to-enact-backdoor-gun-control/
“I really don’t get why The Blaze does anything it does, ….”
Oh, that’s an easy one. The Blaze collect bodies for advertisers, and management will print whichever, whatever, to do it.
“Have you ever considered arguing the point and issue instead of attacking the person you pathetic and obnoxious doofus from progressive hell?”
Well, not if you put it like that, no. I mean, the second half of that sentence completely obliterated the moral appeal of the first half. Do you really not see that?
Chris: ” I have also not seen conservative critics of wind farms ever make a comparison between bird deaths caused by wind farms and other causes of bird deaths.”
One reason is that conservatives don’t believe that it’s possible to do much of anything without “impacting the environment and disturbing habitats”. this was the environmentalist lefts argument that shut down the logging industry in northern California. It is the argument they use to delay and block any kind of development they they don’t like even when the harm can be shown to be minimal or nonexistent.
The problem overall, as I see it, is that major policy and regulation decisions have been made based on radical and false accusations and hype often based on faulty, inconclusive, or incomplete information in favor of the green activist agenda. The same rules and decisions have not been applied to green projects or denied based on similar reasoning.
#16 Chris: Well Chris seems to get it and throws me (and Post Scripts) a bone. We’ll see.
#20 Libby :
Evidently you completely missed the parody, satire and return-in-kind (only funnier) character of that statement you pin-headed harpy moron who lives in a continuous alcoholic and drug addled progressive stupor.
Small matter.
This is for Chris. From the above it appears he may get it. Libby won’t and probably will think it is a formal instructional video on the practical applications of progressive logic and rhetoric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY
Priceless Pie, simply priceless!
To these guys everything is Obama’s fault, Thanks Obama for all that is bad in the world.
Check out pie on twitter…LOL
It explains everything
LOL The new conspiracy the nutjobs believe is Obama is going to run for a 3rd term and be a dictator..coming via AZ Tea party, funny their think tanks sit around all day and think up all these crazy conspiracies to hide what their elected are doing
Tina: “Priceless Pie, simply priceless!”
Tina, if any liberal insulted any conservative on this site with the same type of language Pie used here (and has used the entire time he’s been a guest on this site), you wouldn’t stand for it. Not only would you heavily criticize the attacker, you would use it as evidence of the left’s propensity toward incivility.
No one here behaves as Pie does. Libby can be a bit mean sometimes, but she’s never behaved as badly as Pie, and yet you constantly criticize her for not showing what you believe to be proper civility. You’ve called me a “bully” here more times than I can count, even though I’ve never stooped to Pie’s level. Just look at his earlier overreaction to you when he mistakenly thought you had committed the apparently unpardonable sin of *disagreeing* with him. Yet he gets a complete pass, simply because he is a conservative.
That’s not moral, Tina. You should hold your ideological opponents and allies to the same standard of behavior. Usually you are silent about Pie’s personal attacks, but this time you are actively encouraging Pie calling a woman a “harpy moron” and an “alcoholic,” simply because she criticized his earlier over-the-top insults toward me. That he tries to justify this by calling it “satire” only shows that he doesn’t know what satire actually is.
I apologized to you yesterday for being overtly hostile in my tone, even though I didn’t come anywhere near the level of invective toward you that Pie has directed toward Libby and I. I even apologized to Pie yesterday *after* he used incredibly uncivil language to describe me. While I was genuinely sorry for my tone, I did not deserve any of that from him, and his response was clearly out of proportion to my comments.
Since I apologized to you for my own hostility, I believe you now owe Libby and I an apology for encouraging Pie’s far nastier behavior toward us.
Re #26 Chris : “No one here behaves as Pie does.”
Oh really? Could be. Yet I never threw the first stone you whimpering phony hypocritical jerk. I am simply more direct and over the top than you at insult when I am satirizing and parodying YOUR and your progressive peers never ending steady stream of turd tossing.
You just do not like my style and think your own style of insult gentle. Evidently you think the stream of slurs and insults that you and your nitwit progressive comrades heap here is somehow more civil than my parodies returning fire at you snotty and despicable creeps.
Oh well.
Try this on for size, Chris — man up, change your ways, or continue to cry me a river and then drop dead.
As long as you and your pals engage in a perpetual stream of fallacies, rhetorical nonsense, snide mocking, and personal assault in the Post Scripts comments section I will be happy to stick your and your compatriots nose in it and down press hard.
Oh gee, I did it again. I AM SOOOOOO MEAN AND NASTY!
What an unbelievably hypocritical chump you are.
Re #25 Dewey: Thanks for the free publicity, Dewey. I am graciously and gratefully followed by more than a few highly successful powerhouse conservative pundits. Who follows you?
Chris I don’t see that my appreciation of the video Pie posted has anything to do with whatever it is that goes on between you and Pie. I think Monty Python was brilliant! The sequence is pointed and expresses attitudes to which anyone, if honest, can relate.
“Since I apologized to you for my own hostility, I believe you now owe Libby and I an apology…”
Still attempting to direct my conscience?
I don’t have time to babysit. We are all adults here; our words stand on their own and will live, apparently in perpetuity.
Tina: “Still attempting to direct my conscience?”
No, just hoping you’ll demonstrate one. You frequently complain here about how you believe liberals have destroyed the fabric of morality in our society, yet you don’t set an example of moral behavior on your own blog.
Pie, thanks for demonstrating why conservatives are generally bad at satire.
Funny how twelve comments later, no one has addressed the fact check of the claims made in this article by the Blaze. You’re totally cool with posting abject lies and then never correcting them or even acknowledging that a correction has been made. Your work has been done; you’ve managed to spread yet another lie about Barack Obama.
#30 Chris The Whiner:
First of all, you progressive hipster liar doofus, I do not have a public blog. Please provide me with a link to the blog you are referring to so that I may examine it.
Second, everyone who is the subject of satire thinks the satire bad. Thanks for the chuckle.
My offer is still open, the very moment you start and show a history of engaging in civil discourse I will engage in kind, but with this caveat: If I decide I want to waste my time on a phony, hypocritical, obnoxious jerk like you.
So don’t think for a minute that I give a hoot about your usual tedious juvenile cavils.
Why Chris Is On Acid (And Libby Is A Drug Addled Drunk)
Chris Hallucination: “You’re arguing that wind farm proponents are being hypocritical because wind farms kill birds”
Really? When did I make that assertion?
Chris Hallucination: “To go back to the original topic of this post, Glenn Beck’s website”
This thread is about “Obama’s Back Door to Gun Control”.
Chris Hallucination: “Funny how twelve comments later, no one has addressed the fact check of the claims made in this article by the Blaze.”
Chris is hallucinating that some article in the Blaze and his fixation on it deserves to be addressed.
Libby The Drug Addled Drunk:
Recently Libby informed Post Scripts that an elderly woman who was murdered by three thugs should have given up her purse instead of trying to defend herself. She also asserted that the state was culpable in the murder because it had on record $80,000 in back child support on one of the murderous scum and that this is what drove the gang to the desperation of robbery and murder.
Need I say that Libby’s grotesque and bizarre assertions are the equivalent of blaming the dead victim of a rape-murder for her fate for not willingly opening her legs to a rapist who owed back child support?
I think not.
Both Libby and Chris are completely insane. They make their own case for it.
Why Chris Is On Acid Addenda
Cogitating Chris: “You may be right that the numbers I cited are not valid. I have not looked deeply enough into them to know for certain whether the data is reliable … I have not seen any numbers that contradict these figures. I have also not seen conservative critics of wind farms ever make a comparison between bird deaths caused by wind farms and other causes of bird deaths. This makes their arguments unconvincing to me … That doesn’t mean the data I cited must be correct; it is totally possible that wind farms actually do cause more bird deaths than other sources of energy. That’s just not an argument I’ve ever seen conservative critics make.”
Chris is perfectly willing to assert and accept the validity of the study he cited until challenged and then, absurdly, attempts to prop up himself up the moronic notion that because he can find no contradictions to the study, this lends creedence to it.
Chris then, remarkably, finds flaw with “conservatives” (why conservatives?) for not making counter “arguments”.
Since the study itself is not available to the public at large it is impossible to judge it’s validity. Yet Chris and the usual crowd of enviro-acid heads take it as gospel. Frankly, I am not impressed. Yet that even makes little difference. If the study were available for general consumption it is doubtful Chris has the skills and intellectual capacity to make a valid critique.
I will ask Chris On Acid one simple question: Where is the fundamental flaw in the study’s central avowed correlation and why is it trivially misleading?
Pie: “First of all, you progressive hipster liar doofus, I do not have a public blog.”
Nor, apparently, adequate reading comprehension skills.
Can the Tea party find some new stuff
Obama gonna git ur gun!
here is the truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUPDAMc_6o#t=17
Re #35 Chris:
Whoops, my bad. Got me there. Still it does not change the fact you are a progressive hipster liar doofus.
And you scolding Post scripts about morality is really quite rich.
You cannot answer my question can you?
Small matter.
By the way, Chris, readers of this blog are all well aware where Libby stands on murdered elderly women who attempt to defend themselves. Since you have chosen to defend her, where do you stand? What do you think of her opinion? Do you really hold the same?
How about elderly women (or just women or female children) who ended up beaten or murdered by rapists? Should they have not resisted in order to save themselves from further violence or the ultimate brutality of having their lives taken?
Just wondering.
Looks like Chris — who perpetually demands that Post Scripts and other answer his questions — refuses to answer the questions I have posed to him (one of which is relative to his own “adequate reading comprehension skills”).
No big deal. Chris’ silence speaks volumes.
Pie: “Why Chris Is On Acid (And Libby Is A Drug Addled Drunk)
Chris Hallucination: “You’re arguing that wind farm proponents are being hypocritical because wind farms kill birds”
Really? When did I make that assertion?”
Sorry, you didn’t; Tina did. You seemed to be agreeing with her, but I guess I misunderstood.
Tina said: “LOL…by this logic, and to be consistent by the progressive standard, all wind farm installations in California must be immediately dismantled and removed! Wind farms are killing off birds, and bats, in the thousands!”
I didn’t “hallucinate” anything, I just addressed the wrong person.
Pie: “Chris Hallucination: “To go back to the original topic of this post, Glenn Beck’s website”
This thread is about “Obama’s Back Door to Gun Control”.”
Either you couldn’t even bother to finish reading my sentence before quoting a part of it, or you’re intentionally taking it out of context. What I actually wrote was this:
“To go back to the original topic of this post, Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze has decided to fact check Alan West’s claims, and have found them to be false.”
Tina’s article, “Obama’s Back Door to Gun Control,” relies solely on claims made by Alan West. Claims that the Blaze, a very anti-Obama website, says are not true. Of course what I posted was relevant to the discussion.
“Chris Hallucination: “Funny how twelve comments later, no one has addressed the fact check of the claims made in this article by the Blaze.”
Chris is hallucinating that some article in the Blaze and his fixation on it deserves to be addressed.”
You’re completely unreasonable. That article in the Blaze directly contradicts the information posted in this article by Tina. Of course it deserves to be addressed. If an anti-Obama site is saying that Alan West’s claims are false, and providing evidence to justify their position, why wouldn’t you want to look into that? It’s just like I said: you don’t actually care whether the claims made in Tina’s article are true or not. You are just glad that they’ve been put out there.
“Chris is perfectly willing to assert and accept the validity of the study he cited until challenged and then, absurdly, attempts to prop up himself up the moronic notion that because he can find no contradictions to the study, this lends creedence to it.
Chris then, remarkably, finds flaw with “conservatives” (why conservatives?) for not making counter “arguments”.”
No.
Tina made the original argument that environmentalists should be against wind farms because they kill birds. I pointed out that this makes sense only if wind farms kill MORE birds than other sources of energy. I then cited numbers claiming that wind farms kill a significantly smaller amount of birds than other sources of energy. You made me realize that I had made a mistake in assuming that these numbers were legit without doing any further research, and I thank you for that.
However, since Tina made the original argument that progressives are being hypocritical, the burden of proof is on her to show that wind farms really do kill more birds than other sources of energy. Even if the numbers I cited are completely false, she still has not provided any evidence of her own to show that wind farms kill more birds than other sources of energy. If this evidence can be provided, then her original argument stands. If not, then her original argument is baseless.