image stats
date added
None Yet
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

This man is a complete asshole.

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
This man is a complete asshole.

Comments for: This man is a complete asshole.
PW Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2007 11:08PM

So sayeth the shepard...
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2007 11:10PM

Breaking in my tradition of posting pics of people I admire, I thought it would be a nice change to post pics of people I truly despise. Like the asshole pictured above.

Carbon tax? the finger
smiley If someone would superglue this idiot's mouth shut, carbon dioxide emissions would be cut in half.
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 12:38AM

lamo... couldn't agree more, i don't know about half way, but it would cut down significantly
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 12:48AM

its a damn shame that this retard would get my vote over the complete assholes we have to chose from. When Bush speaks ,IQ levels drop. They even have a book for sale with Bush made up words. Gore looks like a rocket scientist next to Bush.

So much for your BUSH.....

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 10:29AM

We must stop Man Bear Pig!!!
Dennis_Themenace Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 01:01PM

It seems to me, and quite a few more people, that some of the posters here do not like the truth. Why should the "American way of life" be had at the expense of the living conditions for the rest of the world. (In this case, I include Western Europeans, Canadians, Aussies as honorary Americans.)
It is ironic that in this matter, the Americans are sleeping in the same bed as the Chinese, and they are both crapping in it too.
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 01:17PM

Dennis, I think you and the rest of your camp have been smoking too much of Mr. Wilson's stash.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/12/2007 01:18PM by 90130_.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 02:29PM

Al Gore molested me, but he bought an offset from his company, so I guess its ok.
Placelowerplace Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 03:47PM

caption "You! Pull my finger!"
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 04:54PM

To those who trash this man. You all have your head where the sun don't shine. This man won the Nobel Peace prize. He has more class in his finger than you do in your entire body. He is a champion when it comes to saving this earth.
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 06:30PM

And you can keep sucking this hypocrite's carbon coated dick.

Think of the carbon "footprint" this asshole creates as he jets around burning up thousands of gallons of fuel to make his appearances to collect a dubious award for his fucking junk science and enviro propaganda.

Not to mention the $4000 monthly gas bill to keep his fucking mansion heated.

This idiot even bought a Toyota Prius as a quick cover because it came to light that he had several SUVs while promoting his "inconvenient lie"

He's just the enviro-clown's poster boy.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/12/2007 06:34PM by 90130_.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 07:20PM

I live a few miles from Charlotte Harbor in Southwest Florida which is on the Gulf of Mexico. I've lived here for almost 28 years and the coastline doesn't seem to be getting any closer to my house. Anyone else out there noticing the lack of a change of what constitutes waterfront property? I thought that was supposed to be one of the first signs of global warming. How long before I have my property values skyrocket as my property becomes waterfront? And what happened to the predictions of a new ice age that were going around 30 years ago? Gore just wants to have power and attention of some sort and he found a way to jump on a bandwagon and become a cheerleader for how we evil humans have created a phenomenon that the earth has managed to create without our help at several other times in the past. Global warming, if that is even what is happening (the amount of time spent studying this is but a drop in the bucket of geological time so really doesn't count for much), is a natural occurance and I think it shows a real lack of humility to think we can stop the earth from doing what it naturally wants to do. Taking better care of this earth is something we should be doing anyway because it's the right thing to do, not because some power hungry facist and his flawed science say so.
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 07:23PM

Anonymous Wrote:
> To those who trash this man. You all have your
> head where the sun don't shine. This man won the
> Nobel Peace prize. He has more class in his finger
> than you do in your entire body. He is a champion
> when it comes to saving this earth.

"he is a champion when it comes to saving this earth"
sounds to me that you have your head shoved up your ass if you believe that this man actually is interested in what is best for you, and all of the people
all he succeded in offering as a solution(in "an inconvenient truth"winking
smiley to the problem was to put it all on us... and yes, that is correct, we can do alot as well, but never really dared to venture into the even bigger problem, what these big industries do to the planet... and why not? because that does not serve the best interests of his class
all of this man's and all of the rest of the bourgeois interests concern with is maximising their profits, and no real concern over the consequences, no concern over you or me
all his documentary serves to do is to tell you that"hey, it's alright, we care about the enviroment, you don't need to take up action yourself, you don't need to have control, just vote for the democrats, we'll fix you up good, and nevermind our short comings in the past, we won't repeat those errors again... and don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain..." just to screw you all over once again
if we really want a change we need to take action, and this "voting trap" is not the type of action we need to take
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 08:09PM

at least he has confused one person into believing his bullshit. i bet he voted for this cheese dick as well.
some people were just born sheep i guess. eye rolling
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2007 10:56PM

How Junk Science Is Used to Raise Taxes

Written By: Joseph Bast
Published In: Budget & Tax News
Publication Date: December 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


Junk science--the deliberate representation of false or misleading information as credible scientific research--is a growing problem in a variety of public policy debates.

The use of junk science in public policy debates in the United States has a long history--Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, published in 1962, is often credited with launching the modern wave of false alarms.

But while junk science is often debunked, its impact on taxpayers is often overlooked.

Global Warming Alarmism

Global warming alarmism may become the latest case of junk science costing consumers and taxpayers billions (or even hundreds of billions) of dollars. Raising energy taxes was once thought to be the third rail of politics. Everyone remembers what happened when Bill Clinton tried to do it in 1993 and faced a major public backlash. But that was then.

Now, with global warming alarmism running interference, politicians are increasingly supporting higher taxes on energy or carbon emissions or policies that would raise energy costs indirectly, via renewable fuels portfolios, ethanol mandates, and a cap-and-trade scheme.

This effort is gaining momentum even though most scientists don't believe forecasts of future climates are reliable, and even though most economists believe energy is already taxed at or above the level necessary to account for any "negative externalities" caused by its use, including the possibility of global warming.

Economists estimate a carbon tax big enough to reduce U.S. emissions by even a relatively small amount would force consumers to pay $200 to $300 billion a year in higher energy costs. Looking at state and local energy conservation programs already adopted, we might even be a quarter or halfway there already.

But perhaps you don't think politicians have the nerve to do this. Or that the public is paying close enough attention or will get off their couches to oppose it. Consider, then, the strangely similar case of tax hikes on cigarettes.

Master Settlement Agreement

A vivid example of junk science leading to massive tax hikes concerns cigarette taxes. Because it is no longer politically correct to smoke, I should point out that you don't need to be a smoker, or even doubt that smoking can be deadly, to understand that junk science has driven much of the debate over tobacco policy in recent years.

Before the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was signed in 1998, nobody thought politicians would dare to raise taxes on cigarettes by more than a few cents a pack a year. Every tax hike proposal at the state and federal levels was vigorously fought.

Because taxes on cigarettes couldn't be raised through legislation, the anti-smoking movement took to the courts. Thousands of lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies, but virtually none was successful. A longstanding legal precedent was that smokers assumed the risk of their habits by continuing to smoke after being warned of the hazards.

Stealth Tax

Stymied again, the anti-smoking movement tried a different legal tactic: Getting state attorneys general to sue tobacco companies for smoking-related health care spending allegedly incurred by state Medicaid programs. As Kip Viscusi vividly demonstrates in his 2002 book, Smoke-Filled Rooms: A Post-Mortem on the Tobacco Deal, the claim that smokers imposed greater costs on society than they were already paying in excises taxes was simply junk science.

Viscusi demonstrates smokers paid their own way even without taking into account the fact they typically die six to seven years before nonsmokers. Viscusi figured smokers incur higher medical costs of about five cents per pack of cigarettes, but save taxpayers 11 cents per pack due to lower nursing home costs and nine cents per pack due to lower pension costs. "On balance," he writes, "smokers incur about 14 cents less per pack in costs paid by Massachusetts [a typical state], while contributing an additional 51 cents per pack in excise taxes."

The MSA raised the indirect tax by between $0.50 and $1.00 a pack, but the tax never showed up on a smoker's receipt as a "tax." Many politicians and liberal activists held their breath ... and were dumbfounded by the absence of public outcry.

Turns out, smokers tend to have modest incomes and lower rates of participation in politics than the rest of the public. With the tobacco industry unwilling to fund the creation of pro-smoker organizations, there was no effective opposition to higher taxes on tobacco products.

False Claims

More junk science about the social costs of smoking then arrived on the scene, in the form of a 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General widely touted as proving "secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

But the seemingly impressive 727-page report on secondhand smoke released by the Surgeon General's office came up far short of the usual standards for sound science. Nearly all the studies cited in the Surgeon General's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show on human health are too small to be reliable.

Most of the research cited in the Surgeon General's report was rejected by a federal judge in 1993 when EPA first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the findings of the most important studies, and failed to honor scientific standards. The Surgeon General's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.

More Hikes

Nevertheless, widespread fear of the health effects of secondhand smoke has acted as a cover for state governors and legislatures to stick their toes in the once-hot water of raising taxes on cigarettes. To their surprise, it wasn't so hot after all. After early defeats, they started winning. Now, tax hikes of $1 a pack and more routinely pass at the state level.

This year another threshold was passed when a federal tax hike of 61 cents a pack passed the Senate and House. Only a veto of an SCHIP expansion bill by President George W. Bush, for reasons unrelated to the tobacco tax, stood in the way.

These tax hikes haven't destroyed the tobacco industry. They "just" transfer hundreds of billions of dollars a year from smokers to governments each year. They represent a huge defeat for advocates of limited government.

Lessons Learned

The Master Settlement Agreement and the recent huge tax hikes on tobacco products offer three cautionary lessons. First, it's always a mistake to walk away from the scientific debate. Left unchallenged, junk science is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who want to expand government and raise taxes.

Second, it is a mistake to assume industry will come to the rescue of its customers. Tobacco companies endorsed the Master Settlement Agreement and often haven't shown up when big tax hikes are proposed. Oil and gas companies are now jumping onboard the global warming express, happy to profit from the latest public scare.

Finally, just because a certain policy or tax was considered off-limits a decade ago doesn't mean elected officials won't vote for it today. Conservatives shouldn't dare politicians to impose a carbon tax thinking they would lack the nerve to vote for such a tax.

The tremendous noise generated by junk science campaigns provides cover for politicians to raise taxes and take other positions that would, in quieter and more reasonable times, threaten their political careers.


Joseph Bast ([email protected]) is president of The Heartland Institute and publisher of Budget & Tax News.
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: December 27, 2007 08:32PM

More proof the sky isn't falling.