Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 26
An Inconvient Dog Ate My HomeworkPage 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
I am guilty of obtuse but Natasha was being acute with her clever and correct answer.
 Gogetter56
Joined: 9/27/2008
Msg: 27
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/3/2009 7:28:38 AM
A quick note from on the road on I10 currently in Sonora TX getting ready for leg 2 of my trip across tons and tons and tons of unoccupied land. From what I've been told, most of it is owned by the us.gov.

Anyway, we all have our agenda. I just don't trust the reasons being used by the left for what they do. They are so hypocritical when it comes to freedom. The things they do cost so much money it's insane, so to get that kind of money they create these big lies and try to force everyone to fork it over and their scemes and plans never ever end.
 Gogetter56
Joined: 9/27/2008
Msg: 28
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/3/2009 9:37:31 PM
Well my journey is going well enough as I haul my 10mpg gas guzzler home to be able to work on it to get it back on the road. I don't think an electric truck is gonna work...ever. This is all just as smart as plastic grocery bags and electric hand dryers to save one of the best renewable resources
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/3/2009 10:28:07 PM
This if the end part of an article by Conrad Black--"Green is the New Red." I think he nailed it. I love Lawson's comment about why these people don't need to worry about saving this planet.

To some extent, as the immensely respected former British chancellor of the exchequer and energy secretary, Nigel Lawson, has written, Green is the new Red. Marxism has been debunked, and the militant anti-capitalists and oppositionists — too militant to be easily accommodated in conventional oppositions — have decamped to environmentalism, and have taken over the inoffensive tandem bicycle of the naturalists, with their pith helmets and butterfly nets. They have turned it into a nihilist juggernaut seeking an end to capitalist and bourgeois society in the name of earthly salvation and redemption.

It is not surprising that this quasi-religious movement is strongest in the parts of Europe where traditional (Christian) religion is weakest. The eco-extremists allow the conservationists and Sierra Clubs to front for their activities, just as the peace movement became a seamless melange of Communists, fellow-travelers, and pacifist naïfs who filled the critical role of Lenin’s “useful idiots.”

As Lord Lawson wrote in his book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, those concerned about imminent environmental catastrophe — as compared, for example, to the real danger of nuclear terrorism — “need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one. . . . We appear to have entered a new age of unreason. . . . It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.”

What makes this challenge especially daunting is that the forces of unreason are being led by the president of the United States. For 70 years, U.S. presidents led the battles against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, Soviet and Far Eastern Communism, and Islamo-terrorism. After some waffling, President Obama seems to be taking up the cudgels against the terrorists, but he is also crusading for objectives that all other leaders of serious countries know to be nonsense — self-deindustrialization and nuclear disarmament — while spending trillions of dollars the U.S. does not have and cannot borrow.

If the president of the United States is leading the struggle against civilization’s enemies while trying to pursue policies that, however well-intentioned, would undermine that civilization bloodlessly from within, the way forward will be desperately complicated. Mr. Obama seems to think that the world is waiting for him to enact radical change. In fact, it is waiting for him to come to his senses. So, now, are a majority of his countrymen.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 30
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:22:44 AM
Or headlines like these in this mornings world press...




COPENHAGEN CLIMATE SUMMIT: 1,200 LIMOS, 140 PRIVATE PLANES...
Spews More CO2 than 60 Countries do in Entire Year -- COMBINED...
Saudia Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation......
Gore turns to poetry: 'The shepherd cries, the hour of choosing has arrived'...
Major winter storm to wallop central USA...


As Match pointed out Green is the new Red. if you think governments can do a better job of looking after you than you can, you'll trade in your freedoms one freebie at a time until you will be Mao'd. A few hours reading the skeptic's arguments to global warming would convince most people with a brain, a few minutes reading the recent Climategate fraud/hoax would convince anyone but a toe-tag libtard.

Michael Crichton did a great service pulling all these arguments together in his fair novel "State of Fear" in 2005. Actually what is interesting now is that no one, incl. the right-wing nut media I subscribe to is pointing out this is Dr Michael Mann's second offense in fudging the numbers. I really thought he was driven out of science 6 years ago but apparently he just lowered his visibility until this latest scandal.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/7/2009 4:22:27 PM
How about this? Congress passes legislation that eliminates EPA altogether. This is outright communism--part of an overall plan to destroy this country's capitalist economy.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/7/2009 6:37:02 PM
I've heard Lord Monckton before, and I like him. He's quite an authority in climatology himself. I agree with what he said about this proposed treaty, and about Mr. Obama. He's a communist who regrets--and often seems even to resent--the country he was elected to govern. I don't believe anything he says, not out of animosity, but because he was so thoroughly steeped in the methods of another communist, Saul Alinsky. In fact, Obama was chosen to teach those techniques to other "community organizers."

Alinsky's methods are all about deception. They offer a radical statist like Obama a way to appear moderate and reasonable, while all the time he works to undermine everything that has made America great. Lying is a part of that. Under the Alinsky rules, the end justifies the means, and lies are justified if they bring about the wonderful, utopian state control these people are so infatuated with. It's hard to imagine anything much more fundamentally un-American, but Americans elected this man. Never in the history of this country have we had a president so starkly opposed to our Constitution and our entire way of life. None of the other 43--not even FDR--even comes close.

Monckton is wrong about one important fact, although it doesn't have to do with the climate. It has to do with American law. England doesn't have any constitution, so it's not surprising that he made a misstatement about ours.

First, a U.S. president's power to make treaties isn't absolute. He has to make them "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . provided two thirds of the Senators present concur[.]" (U.S.C. Art II. sec. 2, cl. 2.) I don't know whether Obama would have the 67 votes needed to ratify this "protocol" and make it a treaty, although I'm sure someone's been watching all this and has written about the odds.

Second, treaties (which states can't make--Art. I, sec. 10, cl.1) do not take trump the U.S. Constitution. That's a misreading of Article VI, sec. 2. The U.S. Constitution trumps all other laws. If a federal statute (i.e. Act of Congress) or treaty conflicts with a *state* constitution or statute, the federal statute or treaty controls. If a federal statute and a treaty conflict, the more recent one trumps the other.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 33
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/8/2009 7:51:53 AM
Perspective returns, an article in "Forbes" that I will only post a few highlights from.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

Environment
The Fiction Of Climate Science
Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM EST
Why the climatologists get it wrong.


Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."


Yahoo! BuzzOK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Menc....


Read All Comments (150)Post a CommentLast year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 34
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/10/2009 6:54:45 AM
And then BIG ALGORE weighs in with his prespective, I can't refrain from inserting my comments on this tubby windbags offerings. Notice how he so cleverly sau=ys he didn't read all the emails, then claims the newsest is 10 years old when in fact the fraudulent emails were as recent as November 2009. I mean you libtards should just shoot yourself for being a part of such liars and frauds. You may think it's somehow distant and harmless but in fact the potential for mischief is most extraordinary and life threatening to millions of people. I always wondered what kind of people so willingly accepted slavery for trinkets, in modern times they belong to the Dem party.

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 07:02am


Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:


Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)

UPDATE

Reader Barry:

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 1407 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 1944 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

UPDATE 2

Could those carefully vetted journalists who are allowed an audience with the Great Green Guru please - for once - confront him with his exaggerations, distortions, fake evidence and absurd predictions? I’ve done this myself over this issue, and can guarantee you will get a far funnier and more interesting reaction than another of his sermons. You may also get something rather closer to the truth.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 35
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 4:31:23 PM
i think the tide has turned on global warming. The following link is from a mainstream UK newspaper listing 100 reasons why global warning is not manmade. I will list only 10 so our libtard reader's lips don't get tired. The rest of you can find a link at the end listing the other 90.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.


http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 36
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 5:41:30 PM
Roco there is a line of argument that global warming supporters really are attempting to keep the 3rd world from industrializing. Of course the UN plutocrats from Africa are happy to support this deceitful approach as long as they continue to keep their nice apartments in UN and and Switz. The shame of it is the bright and decent African people realize they are being asked to continue a subsistence underclass status so the rest of the planet that has theirs, keeps theirs.

They did this same thing 40 years ago with DDT and this has a lot of the usual suspects writing off the lives of millions of Africans once again.
 kittybiscuit
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 37
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 6:06:13 PM
I don't get why the conservatives have such a snitstorm over global warming. It's like on the level of evolution in terms of "things that get conservatives and religious people nutty." I don't think that it is indisputable nor do I think it is a hoax. It's a theory that needs evidence to back it up and refine it. Maybe some of the threats are not as severe as initially thought, but it doesn't mean the whole theory is a hoax either. I can't muster the give-a-damn to buy into the end of the world scenarios on either side of the fence.

Bottom line: What exactly is wrong with wanting clean air and surroundings, especially when we have the technology to do it? Costs may start out high to convert to cleaner or more efficient methods but over time they will go down as more and more people convert. I really can't get hyped up and screaming pinko commie hippie just because the President throws out some incentives to buy new windows and tankless water heaters. If I had the extra cash, I'd get one of those tankless heaters. The Japanese have been using them for ages and they are awesome.

God forbid we get off the big oil teat. The less money going to the Saudis the better, IMO.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 38
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 6:23:37 PM
If you want clean air say "i want clean air", don't make up a fairy tale about rising oceans and scare kids.

And if you don't understand the financial implications you must learn what causes a such a snit rather than assume it's just a snit.
 kittybiscuit
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 39
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 6:43:43 PM
I understand the financial implications. I believe they are overstated, which is part of the reason why I do not see the reason for the snit.
 kittybiscuit
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 40
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 7:13:46 PM
Don't attack me and call me Obama or doody or whatever. It's not my incentive. I am just saying that I do not see the furor over the concept of clean air and fuel efficiency. What is with the personal attacks?

I already pay taxes out the butt living in California thanks to the real pinko commies in our state legislature.

As a side note:

Taxes are taxes. We are going to be paying for the bailout of our friends in big finance for years. What is so threatening about the average Joe or Jane having their tax dollars actually help them out in tangible way? I rather see someone take the 30% incentive to upgrade the efficiency of their home actually benefit from their taxes while supporting businesses than having those taxes fund some jerkwad's bonus or illegal immigration.

My money is on inflation within the next two years, btw.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/15/2009 10:08:30 PM

I understand the financial implications. I believe they are overstated


Do you know what environmental regulation costs this country, or how much it benefits us? I think anyone who's looked into what's been spent and what's been accomplished would doubt the whole thing's been worth doing. If there's even one of the major federal environmental laws that's even come close to justifying its cost, I'd like to know which one. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA (solid waste), CERCLA (EPA 'Superfund"), FIFRA (poisons), SDWA (drinking water), FESA (endangered species)--every single of them has been a money pit.

There's also the question of how intrusive environmental regulation has become. I think it's pretty clear it interferes with property rights. It also increases the cost of housing, particularly in states like California that have not only federal regulations, but also their own. And the time it takes landowners to comply with various environmental regs imposes a substantial "hidden" cost on productivity. Finally, the "soft tyranny" of giving administrative agencies and their unelected officials vast powers to control the way we live is an intangible cost to all Americans. We should at least be able to sue individual bureaucrats for negligence and malfeasance.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 42
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/16/2009 4:35:58 AM
Match she has a complete financial recounting and has declared it a snit.

The green movement is simply socialism with a new pants suit, government thugs decising who should use what products, where they should live, how long they should live and how their kids should be miseducated. I recall pulling my child out of public school when she came home one day hectoring me about some bug in the brazilian rainforest and she didn't know what state she lived in or some obvious childhood fact, of course neither did her teacher being a nearly impossibly dense "look for the union label" nitwitwhen I made an appointment with the school to determine if this was an anomalie.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 43
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/16/2009 9:11:19 AM
Ever notice how "rainforests" used to be called "jungles," and "wetlands" were "swamps?" The same fifth column that's always suing to have a religious symbol removed, or wailing about the innocent men Bush threw into a dungeon at Gitmo, is at the head of the environmental movement. And you're dead right--most of them are pretty unimpressive.

It's very frustrating to realize how easy it would be to trim environmental meddling back, but to realize at the same time how much people seem to like it. Opposing it--especially to dunces like the teacher you mentioned--is like being against Mom and apple pie. With the right Congress, and better informed voters, all those laws could be trimmed back to the basics. EPA should also be made to enforce them by itself. I think it's unconstitutional for Congress to delegate its "power of the purse" to an administrative agency like EPA, so EPA can use it to club the states into enforcing federal laws.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 44
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/16/2009 11:11:54 AM
Ohhh the humanity! if anyone looks for me I'll be hiding under the bed. I was stunned to learn last week Gore told an interviewer the Earth's core was millions of degrees! I spent the entire day looking for fissures in my backyeard to avoid burns. Then of course yesterday he was caught misusing a scientist's data to predict the end of summer ice in the Artic. And yet they continue to hold climate conferences in Copenhagen to caviar and private jet's while Euro libtards outside cry for "climate justice".

The world has become a confereacy of dunces.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 45
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 12/17/2009 2:05:46 PM
In case there are any doubters left..

http://www.breitbart.tv/flag-waving-communists-socialists-march-in-copenhagen-to-stop-global-warming/
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 46
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/10/2010 9:52:17 AM
If you don't view Powerline daily you miss some fine and funny news commentary. This morning one of the site bloggers posted a funny and telling insight into the fraud that is the MSM and the entire global warming hoax. i will not reproduce the entirety of the blog entry here but provide only a teaser...

Here's what puzzles me, though: isn't global warming supposed to be--you know--global? That being the case, why are moose populations "burgeoning" in Massachusetts, returning to Wisconsin, "growing" in Michigan, moving into Connecticut, where historically they did not live, "booming" in Oregon, "resurging" in Vermont, "increasing" in Washington, "growing exponentially" in New York, "significantly increas[ing]" in Colorado, and "growing" in Utah?

I have no idea whether Minnesota's moose population is declining, or if so, why. Moose are subject to a variety of diseases, and wildlife populations constantly fluctuate for reasons that are often unclear. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the culprit were global warming the syndrome wouldn't stop at the state's boundaries.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/


Everyday presents new opportunity to shake your head at the true believers and the length they will go to confuse libtards. We truly are living in a "Confederacy of Dunces" with apologies to John Kennedy Toole.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 47
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/16/2010 7:55:39 AM
AV I agree with you that while we agree with their sentiment behind many things, I think we both dislike being subjected to lies and liars however noble their end point. I mean who doesn't want a cleaner world, who doesn't want to be independent of foreign energy, etc. But making up end of the world stories to reward crony capitalists (and statists) like GE and Boone Pickers these other 'for sale' characters is outrageous and requires calling foul. the irony of it all is when you sell people with fear based emotion, you lose them forever when proven false and then real problems aren't taken seriously.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 48
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/16/2010 8:22:17 AM

being subjected to lies and liars however noble their end point.


That's the big weakness in the "end justifies the means" use of lies that Alinsky and other Marxists favored. It may work for a while, but in time, public figures who rely on lying to get things done are found out. We now have a president who knows Alinsky's tactics well and uses them. Even people who were too dull to see it before are starting to realize that for Mr. Obama, lying is second nature.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/16/2010 2:07:48 PM
^^^^^Statists want to make everyone depend on the government for their needs. That's what's really behind what Obama has done with banking and with automobiles, and is trying to do with health care.

What stuns me is that so many people in this country, in such a short time, have become so willing to sell their liberties so cheap. It's as if they never took a Civics class, or never read a word of warning by any of the Founding Fathers about tyranny and the danger or centralized power. And it's also as if they don't care a dam about the million or so Americans that have died defending this country and its freedoms.

Statists are doing all they can to tear down America as we've always known it. That's why so many of them dislike the Constitution--they don't much care about things like freedom of speech and religion, property rights, voting rights, or the right to bear arms. They only like certain parts of it, like the Equal Protection Clause, which they want to use to protect their pet grievance groups. So, cafeteria-style, they go for the parts they like and ignore the others.

Most statists are also very hostile to religion, because it's an independent source of ideas and values the government can't control. And that makes it a rival of government. The traditional family's another rival source of ideas and values. How's government supposed to encourage kids to be shiftless and dependent on it, if their parents are teaching them to work hard, be independent, and think for themselves? The main reason John Dewey and other Progressives/Statist educators and social theorists wanted kindergartens was to get children away from the family's influence (and under the government's) a year earlier.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/16/2010 2:13:51 PM

Obama is going to give up 8 billion


If he's offering to pay for them, it's very generous of him. I haven't heard the details of the proposal yet, but where's this money coming from? In the end, Congress has to appropriate it.

I've always been in favor of nuclear electric plants. They already supply something like 20-25% of our electricity. In countries like France and Sweden, about 75% of the electricity is generated in nuclear plants.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework