The Party of Racism: Guess Who?

[_Tarski]

and oil spills are good for the environment and and look cool too.

About 62 million gallons of crude oil seep into the ocean each year from natural points of emission, so whether they're "good for" the environment (certain microorganisms love the stuff) or not, oil is a part of the natural environment, and always has been. Its a natural part of the ocean environment, and a natural part of earth's geologic and biological processes.

The largest oil spills in history are tiny pinpricks of pollution on a vast planet that history and scientific knowledge shows contains a number of mechanisms which quickly process such materials back into itself and "clean" the local environment, restoring it to a "natural" state fundamentally like that which obtained before the spill.

We can't ban crude oil leaking into the ocean from the ocean floor, but anti-capitalist moral prigs drunken with the idea of their own intellectual and moral sanctity and giddy with the prospect of vast, centralized powers of coercion, can try to destroy the modern industrial economy - and hence, civilization, in the name of "social justice."

You are too stupid for words:

1) The oil leaking into the ocean naturally is, with few exceptions, spread out over a large area and usually comes in at points and in ways that local biota have adapted to slowly over millions of years. For example, the oil seeps near Santa Barbra have leaked the equivalent of several dozen Exxon oil tanker leaks but it was over several hundreds of thousand of years. This is vastly different from the wrecking of beautiful coastal areas and devastation of the floara and fauna caused by sloopy greediness of men. What matters is not the amount but the location, the spatial and temporal concentration (divide by area and time), whether deep or superficial. Just think, if the amount of heat radiated from a few square miles of antarctic tundra were all to be radiated into your living room for a minute, it would vaporize you. What does that prove? My town would be such down by a few inches of snow while anchorage wouldn't notice. When Exxon or BP spills, the fauna and flora, and especially humans NOTICE. On the other hand, the natural oil leaks have so little destructive effect that they were not even notice or even known to exist until recently (not that it would make your reasoning any better even if ...).
The generators of your smug and thoughtless talking points depend on you being too low-watt to think about these all important distinctions.

2) Your argument is, in anycase, no better than arguing that nuclear explosions in populated areas or even giant factory explosions like the one in Texas, are not to be worried about (don't lift a finger you commie) since nature does much much worse naturally through volcanoes. (Oh well, then, only a moral prig would lift a finger to stop those pitifully small human causes disasters)

3) Anyone who is the kind of Mormon that you are has no business accusing anyone of being a "moral prig" or of beng "sanctimonious". That is your whole religion! You should stop moralizing about rock music, free love, hip hop culture or who does or doesn't believe in the Bible or go to churchy church. You are a morally santimonious "Elder of Zion" all steeped in wacky self-righteous masonic rituals and it is all based in mere fantasy.
You have the unbelievable nerve to complain about the supposed neopagan religiosity of anyone who thinks there is such a thing as natural beauty worth preserving while you march around holding nutting ideas in your head about golden plates, the earth turning into a giant Urim and Thummin, and a place called Kolob. Give me a freaking break you preachy, self-righteous deluded dork. Hie to Kolob soon please.

[_Droopy]

Tarski's febrile raving speaks for itself. I've actually had quite enough of dealing with someone clearly quite beyond rational discourse.

[_Falcon A]

Since you asked. I'm guessing it's the party influencing subgenius.

What do I win?

[_EAllusion]

Conservationism and environmentalism used to have a coalition of support within the Republican party and several landmark pieces of legislation on the environment have come under Republican direction. As recently as the early 90's, the major difference between the parties was on whether to accomplish environmental policy through behavioral economics or top-down regulation. Even today when you survey rank and file Republicans there is a substantial minority base of support for environmentalist policies that Republican leadership will absolutely not touch. It's the powerful special interests that donate money and turn out votes that control the Republican party's rhetoric through its media footprint and recent legislative trackrecord on issues like global warming. Unfortunately for Droopy, it is they who control what he thinks which is why he is in this thread arguing that major oil spills are no big deal.

On the other end of the spectrum, at its peak, birtherism comprised a substantial majority of all Republicans and required primary candidates to give wink and nod tokens of support to them as a consequence. Calling it "fringe" with no impact misunderstands what both those words mean. Likwise, the vast majority of Republicans are creationists. Depending on how the question is asked, support of creationism ranges from around 70 to 85% among Republicans. About 60% are young earth creationists*. That's just the reality. Saying there are a "few" is like saying there are a few conservatives among self-identified Republicans. Creationist policy that is explicitly unconstitutional springs up all over the country even after constant court defeats, and is taught in defiance of the Constitution in very large %'s of schools in the Southern US anyway, but apparently that's not a policy issue.

*Before Democrats start patting themselves on the back, about 40% (!) of them are YEC's and support of creationism in general shoots up from there.