 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 04/04/2009 8:38:28 PM PDT by neverdem
Yep! Early in the last campaign I posted that my three biggest issues were the economy, illegal immigration and global warming (anti). Some people called the latter two "pet issues" or "irrelevant" or "small stuff." I continue to believe that those actions will do more to hurt this country than anything on the horizon. Gingrich (et.al.) do us no favors by playing footsie with the enemy.
GW Ping
I understand your sentiment on Gingrich. He is on my “do not trust” list, but I haven’t completely given up on him. I may get there, LOL.
I agree with you about the letter beside the name. The Arnold experience, along with all of his supporters(R), has cured me of believing any of them are “on my side.” There are the two parties, playing out a complex game on the world stage, and then there are the people who are represented by neither party. Until we recognize that it is a ‘Us v. Them’ game (people v. gov/elitist politicians), things won’t get better, IMO.
GO WHITE SOX!!!!
All to say; you do not let babies handle guns; or allow children to play with real ones. Nor may they handle knives or other dangerous objects which may harm them or others. It is the responsibility of the 'adult consciousness' to protect them from themselves; and protect ourselves and others, from them and - what well could be - their inmature; unrestrained responses.
Allowing what we know and call, 'rogue' nations get into the 'adult sandbox' is an abdication of our responsibility to whomever may be harmed by their lack of control - a behavior we know, they might easily and 'irrationally' exhibit.
We are NOT making the world a safer place; but rather allowing a most threatening environment to prosper and threaten life, as we know it. While Libs typically will congratulate themselves here; they are so wrong to do so. This IS in truth, a damning abdication of our moral responsibility to the world-at-large; and to all at home in ours.
Posessing nuclear induces restraint only in those countries where there is sufficient moral 'consciousness' so as to exercise such restraint.
All to say; you do not let babies handle guns; or allow children to play with real ones. Nor may they handle knives or other dangerous objects which may harm them or others. It is the responsibility of the 'adult consciousness' to protect them from themselves; and protect ourselves and others, from them and - what well could be - their inmature; unrestrained responses.
Allowing what we know and call, 'rogue' nations get into the 'adult sandbox' is an abdication of our responsibility to whomever may be harmed by their lack of control - a behavior we know, they might easily and 'irrationally' exhibit.
We are NOT making the world a safer place; but rather allowing a most threatening environment to prosper and threaten life, as we know it. While Libs typically will congratulate themselves here; they are so wrong to do so. This IS in truth, a damning abdication of our moral responsibility to the world-at-large; and to all at home in ours.
Good grief! Cancelled Newsweek years ago; and simply do not buy it. However; I may buy this one; a little economic ‘vote’ for their taking a ‘new look’. Who knows; if they are rewarded often enough for these little acknowledgments to ‘Reason’; they may get the idea as to how to raise their profit margins. A small step here, no doubt; but want to encourage them to take more. . .
I had said that for so long I gave up saying it because the best I would get back was silence. Not even "WTF are you talking about Av?"
I even commissioned a cartoon that depicts the traitors of the republic in action and found that still didn't get much of a response other than knee-jerk defense of the Republican part of the ruling coalition.
I finally tried to encapsulate a good portion of the problem down to a fundamental truth as stated in my tagline.
What I have found is an alarming lack of imagination on the Right even from people who are clearly tired of knocking their heads against the wall.
There appears to be no interest in reconsidering the premises we've been indoctrinated with. No open discussion about what can be done to recognize the true nature of the contemporary political playing field. Even where it is quite apparent that Left and Right are (mis)leading us in the same statist direction. Why? Because there has been no real organized opposition that fights on its own clear vision.
Yes, it is wonderful to see comments such as yours tonight. And yes, because it is exceedingly rare, it is very sad too.
What has the contemporary political playing field become? One has systematically been given only two choices: Left or Right, "liberal" or "conservative."
From early on, people are asked to identify more or less with one or the other label. How could they then NOT BE confounded when they find out that the label they have chosen to hang on themselves is controlled by others? And even more amazing is how many of them will then accept a limit upon their actions by to those who control the label.
Liberals don't consider consequences because it's their intentions that matter and they come to believe that intentions are all that are necessary (even where their wishes violate physics).
Conservatives never get upset in public (without being attacked by their own) as that would be unseemly, even in the face of idiots insisting that the sun will rise in the West because the wishers only demand we all share their expectations because they have only good and pure intentions.
Meanwhile the influence peddlers who control the image of the labels have guaranteed that the L hand will fight the R hand forever because it guarantees that power will gravitate into but a few hands: those of the despot who works mightily to keep the hoi polloi fighting amongst themselves so they can never get around to him.
Newsweek emphasizes "Might." If they read GW articles, that is the next most common word after "the." I exaggerate, but they usually toss in in.
Exactly. But the reason for the two parties is to artificially split the people's sensibilities and pit them against each other, so they never unite to throw off their oppressors. Each of the two parties (Liberal & RINO) splits the truth and swaps it's balance with the other party, so there is always some truth to each side, mixed with calculated falsehoods.
Then the parties rigidify their positions, maximize loyalty alone, and deliver this POS to the people - who rightiously grab the side they think they believe in, while getting simultaneously hammered by the other side's accusations of hypocrisy.
For the elite, accompanied by a glass of fine champagne and a bite of lightly toasted croquette, it is an amusing spectacle, between bank runs. Because despite it's relative crudity in this modern day, divide-and-conquer still works marvelously well, when properly adjusted and tended by the MSM.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
No Wonder Climate Alarmists Refuse to Debate
American Thinker | April 05, 2009 | Marc Sheppard
Posted on 04/05/2009 12:19:51 AM PDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2222642/posts
[snip] Climate Progress’s Joe Romm... “On our current emissions path we are going to warm the United States 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century and sea level rise will be 5 feet or higher and a third of the planet will be desert.”
Not really. It is incontrovertibly true that the human addition to the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases warming. But the relevant question is....HOW MUCH. And right now, the best evidence is "not much at all compared to other phenomena". I'm a lot more scared by the lack of sunspots, and the potentially hugely disastrous effects of "global cooling" (aka anohter Ice Age).
Sorry, but wrong. The link is absolutely correct. The science is well known and incontrovertible. An increase in CO2 certainly DOES cause a retention of heat in the atmosphere. But the correct question is "HOW MUCH" is that CO2 induced warming effect compared to other factors. And the right answer is "not much at all".
Oh it could cause some some minimal heat retention, but there are so many other factors that offset that. For instance, additional cloud cover likely has a cooling effect, although it is modeled as having a significant warming impact, thus contributes to the accelerating global warming the models predict. The fact is, in the 4 billion history of this planet, CO2 has never been a driving force in climate warming.
I've a friend who says it would be France. (Just to be sure.)
I guess that makes Bill Clinton and John Kerry French lefties, then.
Well yeah. Lurch IS a French lefty :-)
Global warming is clearly a hoax, but what about cholesterol? The medical community has billions invested in cholesterol-lowering statin drugs that may be counterproductive. Any ideas?
Evolution is also a hoax though there can be change over time, not from one specie to another.
And of course “caring politicians” are a hoax.
When one thinka bout it, hoaxes are everywhere because there are gullible people.
Some dreams never seem to die (go Cards!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.