Q: Do you usually vote Democrat? GOP Voter: No. Q: Are you Republican? GOP Voter: Yes. But not anymore. I’m changing. The Republican Party is not the same as it used to be.
The Picture accompanying this seed is one of the more stupid and divisive pictures one could post. As this is a seed, shouldn't you be using illustrations from the actual article?
(Sparty On-sorry this comment falls in your string-not meant towards you).
if you disagree with them they brand you stupid or some such partisan vitriol
When one side says "Two plus two is four." and the other side says "No it isn't, two plus two is banana." it's hard not to call the latter group stupid. 100% of all scientists agree that two plus two is four, 97% of them agree that the climate is being negatively effected by man causing more rapid climate change which is based on mountains of climate science and data. 97% of right wing know-nothings don't believe the climate is being effected by man contrary to all evidence. That's pretty stupid. Sure, they come up with all sorts of excuses not to believe two plus two is four, but the fact remains, they reject science because they have a deep seated desire not to believe it. It's not based on science or facts, just their gut that's been manipulated by the fossil fuel industry that employs many of these climate deniers.
Working hard to convince someone that two plus two does in fact equal four is what you do for someone you care about, it's not hate but love. If I'd been indoctrinated to believe that what I saw as "Red" was actually called green, I'd hope someone who knew the truth would correct me so I didn't go around sounding stupid when I tell them to stop at a green light or to let the green fire truck pass.
Nah, just pointing our the ridiculously disingenuous nature of the seed topic. Well ..... okay .... i'm sure there is a percentage of Repubs who actually did what the seed alleges.
Albeit a VERY small percentage but i suppose one can define "many" however they choose.
When one side says "Two plus two is four." and the other side says "No it isn't
Yeah well, the problem with your logic there is that is doesn't apply to opinions. The mathematical result of two plus two is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not an opinion. The meme .... is an opinion.
What the seed meme is saying is not provable (and/or hasn't been proven here) and is only valid as partisan rhetoric. It's simply an unprovable "sweeping" generalization. Now if the meme said "some" instead of "vast majority" it might be on to something as it would clearly be less disingenuous.
But being sincere doesn't always push the preferred political narrative now does it?
As this is a seed, shouldn't you be using illustrations from the actual article?
I remember either Perrie or one of the mods stating this, but I can't find it in our rules. They also said that if the article didn't have a photo, we could use one that's related to the content of the article.
to attribute its existence entirely to human actions is not good science.
Who is doing that? Of course humans aren't solely responsible for climate change, the climate has been changing since the planet was formed 4.5 billion years ago. What the super, super majority (97%) of climate scientists agree on is that human activity is having a measured effect on speeding up climate change in a direction that is bad for a large portion of humanity. Sure, some sections of the globe might get nicer because of the more rapid climate shift, we're growing wine grapes in California further north than ever before because of this. But we're literally watching the Maldives wash away in the tides, hurricanes are significantly more sever on average, we're experiencing 100 year flood every few years, not every century as would be expected. Human activity has had a major effect and I agree that there's not a lot we can do about the damage already done, all we can do is shift to a less destructive, less impactful footprint that will allow the rapid climate changes to at least slow down and at the same time we need to adapt how we live to deal with the climate we now have. Design housing to withstand 1000 year flooding instead of 100 year flooding, build better levies, dikes and damns along our most effected coastlines. Pollute less, adapt more. That should be the easy motto of anyone, even climate deniers, because just like two plus two is four, you cannot deny the damage humans have already had on the planet, from Chernobyl to the thousands of chemical spill superfund sites across America.
The Picture accompanying this seed is one of the more stupid and divisive pictures one could post. As this is a seed, shouldn't you be using illustrations from the actual article?
E.A Have you tried Seeding, have a go and see what it wants for it to be activated!
So I Agree with You, that the Photo should be autoloaded from the seeding article, so why is it not the way it is set up?
You can provide links which claim a hoax, that is all. The fact that you categorically dismiss AGW illustrates that you employ zero objective reasoning in this matter. An extreme position based -it would seem- on emotion and ideology rather than evidence.
I can counter every post you make with links to scientists who refute the hoax of AGW
There are virtually no scientists who say that man has zero effect on our climate. Some, a very small number who mostly work for the fossil fuel industry, claim that climate is changing on its own and we have only a tiny almost imperceptible effect on it. They make this claim because their financial welfare is dependent on not changing the way we extract, package, sell and consume fossil fuels. What they are essentially disputing is that if climate change were the speed at which a car was traveling down hill, how can we exactly tell whether its the hill and gravities effect on the car that is moving it at that speed and speeding up, or is it the foot on a gas peddle that is adding to the ever increasing speed. If the engine were turned off, would the car be going as fast? 97% of climate scientists say no, of course not, the engine of mankind is accelerating the speed of the climate car adding to the natural downhill rolling speed.
I had one of my pictures changed and when I asked I was told it was a protection measure to protect the site-some excerpts of conversation:
"This has to do with if I can be given a cease and desist from a lawyer, which I can live without."
"The pics for the articles are supposed to come from the source. When it is obvious, like yours was, I change them. This is all about copyright law, and I do it all the time,"
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO 2 : on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad
Mineralogical-Geological Museum
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Norway
Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949.
University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo.
Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA.
At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo.
Past Head There is of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo (for a total of 12 years).
Past Head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
Member of different international and national professional working groups and committees, including Expert Reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
Robert H. Essenhigh
Credentials
Ph.D., Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield (1959).
M.S., Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge (1955).
B.A., Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge (1951)
Essenhigh's area of study has been the effect of chemical kinetics on the rate of coal combustion.
Stance on Climate Change
Essenhigh believes that after the next 20 years, the Earth “will begin to cool into a new ice age.”
“'At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide,' he said. 'And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does.'” [2]
“The outcome is that the global warming advocate’s conclusion on the role of CO2 evidently has it back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.”
March 7, 2008
OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND CO2
Global Climate Change Has Natural Causes
by Lance Endersbee
Professor Endersbee is the former Dean of Engineering and former Pro-Vice Chancellor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
It is my belief that:
• Climate change is a characteristic feature of the dynamic system of the Earth, Sun, and Cosmos.
• Air pollution and global warming are scientifically separate issues.
• Emissions of carbon dioxide are not a cause of global climate change.
• Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life.
• The solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans decreases with an increase in sea temperature, and increases with cooling.
• The oceans breathe carbon dioxide in and out with the seasons, and with major climate changes such as El Niño and
La Niña events.
• The vast surface area of the oceans determines the interchange of gases between the atmosphere and the oceans.
• There is no need for carbon trading, or geosequestration.
• Carbon trading is the result of fear mongering about global warming by the IPCC and others.
• Carbon trading has not arisen from market forces, and presents enormous risks to investors.
• When it is recognized that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, carbon trading will collapse.
• The vast areas of black pavements and dark buildings in large cities cause local heating, called an urban heat island effect.
• The deadly pollution of dust, acid gases, and water vapor entering the atmosphere in many world cities adds to the
heat island effect.
• Such cities can be most unhealthy places. The problems are local, not global, and correction to this man-made pollution
must be industry- and city-centered.
The Sun Drives Our Climate
The major driving forces causing climatic variations on Earth are the variations in the full spectrum of radiation of the
Sun, the variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the varying gravitational influence of the larger planets on the
Sun, and the influence of cosmic radiation on both the Sun and the Earth.
Not a single thing in the entirety of what you posted presents any actual evidence against anthropogenic global climate change. All they say is that some have turned the fact that the climate is changing into a dogma, into an ideology, which to some is alarming or "concerning". They also point out the primary drivers of climate change like the Sun which has never been refuted by climate scientists. And while facts like "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life." are true, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any effect on global temperatures, especially when the warming trends lead to increased release of the gas into the atmosphere.
I have seen plenty of objective reasoning which form the basis for skepticism, routinely avoided by those immersed in the cult of AGW.
Of course you have. AGW is alsoa political issue and both sides will be providing their arguments. In the 1960's you would have seen plenty of 'objective reasoning' from professional scientists insisting that lead in gasoline was causing no ill effects when dispersed from exhaust pipes. You might also remember the active campaigns providing 'objective reasoning' that countered the claim that smoking was hazardous to one's health. So sure, you have seen plenty of counter arguments to AGW. There are very good business reasons (short term bottom line) to fight against AGW motivated changes.
Now, per this context, LFOD categorically rejects AGW. Rejects the very idea that anthropogenic factors are affecting our climate in a significant way. Do you agree with him that we should ignore the findings of worldwide climate scientists (et. al.) and continue to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Do you think that God has our back and will not allow us to slowly kill future generations?
More importantly, they offer no realistic solution even if they self directed and consistently erroneous modeling offers some minor degree of validation.
There are plenty of realistic actions. But I agree that we do not have enough understanding to state with certainty our optimal course of practical action. But that is no excuse for not taking prudent, sensible steps such as reducing carbon emissions from industry, automobiles, etc. through technology and conservative usage (e.g. carpooling). Using less fossil-fuel sourced energy in general by reducing waste in direct energy (e.g. weatherization, smart thermostats), recycling, producing less waste products (e.g. trash, drain water), etc. are measures available to everyone and are sensible measures regardless of AGW.
Grand Canyon has been studied by multiple geologists and other scientists for over a hundred years, and to date, there is no agreement as just how it formed or how old it is .
they are part of the longstanding Rockefeller Democratic Socialist Wing
Apparently, to you anyone who doesn't live in the woods killing their own game, living off the land and reading the bible to each other by candlelight each night, are socialists.
Wrong. I call those who support statist control of our lives with a communist progressive income tax and redistribution of wealth programs through forced collectivism to be socialist.
That is just a vague claim; at the Pee Wee Herman level even.
Tossing around words such as 'communist' and 'socialist' illustrates a lack of understanding. At the very least you should realize that those words are so overloaded nowadays as to be meaningless. They largely connote a non-specific 'bad' (merely emotive) to most people so at best you are using them as swear words.
What is your objection to using words that have clear meaning such as 'statist' - especially when the words express the meaning you seem to wish to impart?
I use Statist here quite often and I differentiate between types of Statist Governments. Our is one driving towards a type of Marxist Statism that embraces elements of communism and utilizes as Marx stated, socialism as the transition period between capitalism and communism.
So we have members of the Democratic party in and out of Congress who are members of the Communist Party, many are members of Socalist Party Organizations.
The debate among Democrats is the same one Hitler had about Nazism vs Communism. Hitler said that both embraced marxist thought but the difference was in the end goals. Communism's goal is anarchy whereas Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others want an all Powerful State to administer Marxist ideology
Tossing around words such as 'communist' and 'socialist' illustrates a lack of understanding. At the very least you should realize that those words are so overloaded nowadays as to be meaningless. They largely connote a non-specific 'bad' (merely emotive) to most people so at best you are using them as swear words.
Does the same hold true for bigot/bigotry, misogynist and racist? .....
Did you know that 'irony' is said to be the most misused word in the English language?
Does the same hold true for bigot/bigotry, misogynist and racist? .....
Personally, no. The meaning of bigot, misogynist and racist are rather well defined. People are often improperly labeled as such but the words themselves have clear meaning.
In contrast, the words socialism and communism (and variants) have been rendered meaningless in the vernacular being overloaded with many contradictory meanings.
Our [ government ] is one driving towards a type of Marxist Statism that embraces elements of communism and utilizes as Marx stated, socialism as the transition period between capitalism and communism.
Contradicts:
Communism's goal is anarchy ...
Why?:
You are suggesting that our government is moving towards communism. Our government is thus (per you) moving towards a system whose goal is anarchy (per your odd declaration)?
(In simple terms: anarchy is the absence of government.)
Our [government] is one driving towards a type of Marxist Statism that embraces elements of communism and utilizes as Marx stated, socialism as the transition period between capitalism and communism.
There are multiple models of Marxist ideology that range from Communism to totalitarian Statist governments
Stalin, Hitler, and Castro all directed totalitarian Statist governments that embraced Marxist economics. However they differed with Marx on the end result. Marx agreed with Hegel on temporarily having a powerful Statist Government to transition to the end goal of communism which is ultimately one of anarchy
There are multiple models of Marxist ideology that range from Communism to totalitarian Statist governments
And you mixed the different meanings of communism to produce the contradiction I noted. And I did not even bother to mention other problems with your posts such as claiming Stalin, Hitler or Castro embraced the economic model of Marx (one in which the workers would have economic control in absolute contrast to the systems of the aforementioned dictators).
Good, moderate people who aren't part of the fringe left wing hive. People who simply want to represent their electorate fairly and not be told what to do by fundamentalist lunatics.
The rejection of Trump is why the economic numbers don’t matter. Jobs reports are meaningless because the decision that voters are making no matter which issue is their top priority is based on how they feel about Trump and the direction that he is taking the country in. Trump is literally voters who used to support his party to the Democrats.
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this 'touchy - feely' article. It's quite laughable to think that economic numbers and jobs reports are 'meaningless' and it's all about how they 'feel'.
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this 'touchy - feely' article. It's quite laughable to think that economic numbers and jobs reports are 'meaningless' and it's all about how they 'feel'.
That's why the original article should have been tagged as "Opinion". Real journalism is based upon facts ... not feelings.
Well Don, you've gone and done it again triggering the right's primal fears...
It wasn't the Right who's been crying, screaming, and triggered for 2 years, JBB. They didn't wear safety pins, dream about blowing up the WH, threaten to leave the country, and need safe spaces, comfort pets, crayons, and coloring books.
lol. I don't think you want me to post depictions of Trumpsters over the past 2 years.
Why would you think that I would care or possibly be offended about what you or anyone posts, John? I can assure you that NT isn't as important to me as it is to others who seem to live on this site.
A group of Republican voters in Arizona was interviewed, and a common theme emerged. They won’t vote for Republican candidates while Trump is president.
How many people does it take to make a 'group' .. 3 to 5? .. 5 to 9? 10 or more?
Well we will all find out when we wake up on the 7th. I would be thankful for that day when the mid-terms have finally concluded. But my thanks would be short lived indeed as that will be the 1st day of the 2020 Presidential campaign (even though it seems that the 2016 campaign continues), hold on to your hats boys and girls this is going to be an even wackier two years.
that will be the 1st day of the 2020 Presidential campaign (even though it seems that the 2016 campaign continues)
Oh, Luther! You just had to go and say that! It's like Mr Giggles telling me the Farmer's Almanac is calling for ice storms this year while I was musing on the great weather we had on Saturday.
Seriously, I wish we would do as the Brits. I believe once the candidates have been selected they have thirty days or so to make their case, not round the clock eternal campaigning to the point of nauseam as we have here. If that were the case, our politicians might actually be able to concentrate on what they were elected for in the first place.
I don't recall a President having as many 'rallies' as the current 'president' though. I mean between golfing, watching Fux 'news', tweeting on the crapper, and 'rallies' - what the hell does this 'president' do?
He barely even has time to cheat on his wife, again... His tiny hands are probably totally out of pussy grabbing practice, though maybe he's keeping those diminutive digits limber with the constant texting on the toilet.
A group of Republican voters in Arizona was interviewed, and a common theme emerged.
According to the article's video, a "group" is 3 people who claim to be registered Republicans. Yep, that's a balanced representation of 1,288,332 registered Republicans. Thanks, Politicus and MSNBC for your stellar journalism!
Hussein Obama spent his entire presidency trying to divide this country
That can only be true from the perspective that his skin color was bringing division in some bigoted minds. I'm a straight white male who watched the entire 8 years of his Presidency and saw none of the false rhetoric GOP talking points and white supremacists claims of division you're repeating.
Everything comes down to skin color to the left. It is their main weapon. They use it as a wedge to divide the country and even a slight tap on that wedge can widen the gap.
That's your inability to actually argue the substance
It was your inability to articulate a valid argument by citing any examples of the supposed division you claim was a theme throughout his two terms. You have eight years to come up with something and all you give is generic rhetoric without a shred of evidence. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the real supposed division you are referring to must be the one thing that was continuous from the day he took office to the day he left it, his skin color.
Obama hasn’t been divisive just because his policies are so unpopular, though that’s a large part of it. He has intentionally engaged in identity politics, trying to pit groups of people against each other on the basis of race, gender, religion, economic earnings and sexual orientation.
He has pitted labor against management, creating an adversarial and litigious climate.
He has demonized private jet owners, domestic energy producers (oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy), corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, businesses, executives, financial institutions, insurance companies, doctors, tea partiers, small-town inhabitants (bitter clingers), immigration enforcement advocates and the so-called 1 percenters.
use “gay rights” as a wedge issue and depict opponents of same-sex marriage as bigots;
manufactured a phony GOP “War on Women”;
say Republicans want dirty air and dirty water
Said Republicans rejoice when people lose their insurance coverage
crammed Obamacare down the throats of a strongly opposed majority which removed our freedom of liberty to choose whether or not to purchase a commercial product.
Repeatedly tried to scare seniors, the “middle class” and the “poor” into believing Republicans want to destroy Medicare;
vilified immigration enforcement advocates as racists;
waged a war against states on immigration, voter ID laws, and land rights
worked against military ballots;
exploited race and minority relations for political purposes and for ideological reasons, including Eric Holder calling the nation cowards on race, racializing voter intimidation laws and saying the GOP was after him on Fast and Furious because he, like Obama, is an African-American; appealing to Hispanics and blacks to vote as a bloc for Democrats because Democrats are their friends and Republicans their enemies; and accusing the GOP of supporting voter ID laws to suppress the minority vote and immigration laws for racial reasons.
I know from observation that you use the word 'marxist' to mean 'bad' but of course there is no way to tell what you think you mean when you use 'marxist' as an adjective.
So how, exactly, was Obama a 'marxist revolutionary'?
See, a Marxist revolutionary would be one who actively tried to change the economic system from capitalism to one in which the people ended up with control over their economic lives. Clearly you do not mean that so what, exactly, did Obama do (as you imagine reality) to earn the epithet 'Marxist revolutionary'?
Interesting. You hold that Obama is willing to destroy millions of lives for self aggrandizement and power with an underlying objective to make everyone else equally miserable.
( Or were you not paying attention to the discussion? )
Obama was raised by communists, mentored by a communist leader (Frank Marshall Davis), was part of a marxist revolutionary cell at Occidental College.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate as a member of the Socialist New Party
He was paired with Valerie Jarrett because she comes from a family of communist party members.
He embraces fully marx's redistribution of wealthy ideology
He supports Marx's destruction of the traditional family
Obama made it clear that he is against capitalism
Obama tells America "It doesn't work. It's never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade."
Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois. That is a published fact and beyond dispute. Here is the New Party link noting Obama as a New Party candidate for the Illinois State Senate seat that he won
Testimony from someone involved in the marxist cell at Occidental College that Obama was a member of:
The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase "When the revolution comes...." In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. "There's going to be a revolution," Obama said, "we need to be organized and grow the movement." In Obama's view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution....
Drawing on the history of Western Europe, I responded it was unrealistic to think the working class would ever overthrow the capitalist system. As I recall, Obama reacted negatively to my critique, saying: "That's crazy!" Since Boss and Obama had injected theory into our debate, I reacted by going historical. As best I can recreate the argument, I responded by critiquing their perspective with the fresh insight I had gained from my recent reading of Barrington Moore's book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). Moore had argued that a Russian or Chinese style revolution -- leading to communism -- was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.
Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. I can still, with some degree of ideological precision, identify which students at Occidental College were radicals and which ones were not. I can do the same thing for the Occidental College professors at that time.
I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps -- for the first time -- considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president's past.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog . Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College.
Your argument is that Obama was influenced by Marxists (as if the term 'Marxist' has a specific meaning) and thus he was/is a 'radical marxist'. Given Obama was PotUS for 8 years he certainly had the best possible chance to act on his revolutionary Marxism. Yet you offer nothing that he actually did - only weak historical associations among a number of flat out misunderstandings (on your part) of what Marx sought. For example: you continue (refuse) to understand that Marx had no intention of destroying the family but was rather talking about how the family is destroyed by child labor and both parents working.
As PotUS Obama did indeed say:
Obama tells America "It doesn't work. It's never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade."
But he was referring to trickle down economics. You think disagreeing with trickle down economics is 'radical marxism'??
Finally, Obama always ran as a D. He joined the New Party as a young candidate yet you failed to list what he actually did that was 'radical marxism'. And the New Party was not a socialist organization - they favored European social democracy. That is capitalism - not socialism.
I asked you to explain why you labeled Obama a 'radical marxist' and you deliver a bunch of weak associations from Obama's past, nonsense claims of wanting to destroy the traditional family and your opinion that Obama was against capitalism.
You are talking about a man who served as PotUS for eight years as -in your bizarre world- a lifelong radical 'marxist' yet you fail to show what this alleged 'radical marxist' actually did with his power and influence to bring forth radical 'marxism' in our nation.
He has intentionally engaged in identity politics, trying to pit groups of people against each other on the basis of race, gender, religion, economic earnings and sexual orientation.
Riiiiiight, because none of those things were in conflict before Obama. Gay's had all the same rights as any other law abiding tax paying citizen, women are paid the same as men for the same job, Christians never try and force their religious views on everyone else through legislation contrary to the constitution and black Americans and other minorities are always treated exactly the same as any other American not only in the workplace but in the justice system, then Obummer came along and ruined everything. /s
Is that really how you see this? I didn't think it possible but I suppose there could be people that are that fucking blind.
use “gay rights” as a wedge issue and depict opponents of same-sex marriage as bigots
Bigot: noun - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
Religious conservatives are intolerant of lgtbq Americans who just happen to hold different moral beliefs. Thankfully our constitution specifically forbids religious conservatives, or any other religion, from establishing their religious moral code as law.
manufactured a phony GOP “War on Women”;
Not manufactured if misogynist conservatives continue to demand the right to take away women's choices over their own bodies and what happens to grow inside their bodies. They have been waging a war on women for at least four decades or more now.
say Republicans want dirty air and dirty water
No one says that, I don't think you want dirty air or water. I do think Republicans have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry into thinking they can do no wrong and so you're more apt to accept dirty air and water as long as your dirty paychecks keep coming in.
Said Republicans rejoice when people lose their insurance coverage
No one said that, I'm sure most Republicans want health insurance that's affordable and functional. At the moment, thanks to Republican obstructionists, it is neither.
crammed Obamacare down the throats of a strongly opposed majority which removed our freedom of liberty to choose whether or not to purchase a commercial product.
Democrats made almost 150 changes to the ACA that were requested by Republicans and spent nearly a year debating it before it passed. The lies about the ACA told by the GOP could pave a road to the moon.
Repeatedly tried to scare seniors, the “middle class” and the “poor” into believing Republicans want to destroy Medicare;
More pure bullshit. Obama's policies stabilized Medicare and Republicans HAVE for a long time been wanting to get rid of both Medicare and Social Security with the most recent proposal coming in the second term of G.W. Bush.
vilified immigration enforcement advocates as racists;
If you're profiling and just being "anti-immigrant" because you've heard a bunch of bullshit from bullshit right wing pundits, then yeah, you're likely a racist and display it when you holler about immigrants.
waged a war against states on immigration, voter ID laws, and land rights
The Republicans are the ones caught with their hands in the racist disenfranchisement of black Americans. Multiple courts have ruled against their voter ID laws that were based on lies about the virtually non-existent illegal immigrant vote saying the GOP targeted black Americans with "surgical precision". Shows what pieces of shit you apparently support.
worked against military ballots;
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
exploited race and minority relations for political purposes and for ideological reasons, including Eric Holder calling the nation cowards on race, racializing voter intimidation laws and saying the GOP was after him on Fast and Furious because he, like Obama, is an African-American; appealing to Hispanics and blacks to vote as a bloc for Democrats because Democrats are their friends and Republicans their enemies; and accusing the GOP of supporting voter ID laws to suppress the minority vote and immigration laws for racial reasons.
There are a bunch of fucking cowards on race in America, we saw them marching with their tiki torches, and that head of the snake was just a small sampling of the pieces of racist white supremacist to be found among the Trump faithful.
So your list doesn't actually detail a single thing Obama did to supposedly "divide" us. You list a bunch of bullshit rhetoric without any evidence to back up a single word of it, but I'm not surprised, it's what ideologues do.
use “gay rights” as a wedge issue and depict opponents of same-sex marriage as bigots;
Quite clearly the opponents of marriage equality and/or of equal civil rights for gays are dumb bigots. I don't see how you can even debate that point. It's like saying that those who opposed mixed-race marriage weren't racist morons. And calling civil rights a "wedge issue" just shows how far on the wrong side you really are.
Quite clearly the opponents of marriage equality and/or of equal civil rights for gays are dumb bigots
I would have to disagree. There are many older folks (if my parents were alive they would fall into this) that will never be able to wrap their heads around this notion for varying and legitimate reasons. Although laws have been enacted it will still take a bit of time for this to become totally accepted by most (some, never).
I do not consider folks of this type to be dumb bigots, just people that may need to have a bit of time to digest change, rather than having it rammed down their throats.
To eliminate any diatribes, yes I do support equal rights for everyone but I am not quite yet 95. It will come, give it the time needed.
There are many older folks (if my parents were alive they would fall into this) that will never be able to wrap their heads around this notion for varying and legitimate reasons.
I hate to tell you this but your folks held bigoted and heterosupremacist views. That those views were common or traditional at the time doesn't make them any less bigoted than those who opposed mixed-race marriage or didn't think married women should be allowed to vote or own property in their own name.
I do not consider folks of this type to be dumb bigots, just people that may need to have a bit of time to digest change, rather than having it rammed down their throats.
The definition of bigot doesn't have anything to do with "time" or how old someone is. I get what you're saying, that some people who have been steeped and indoctrinated in bigotry since their childhood and find nothing wrong with disparaging those they've been taught to hate with a passion aren't likely to change anytime soon. That doesn't mean we should simply give bigots a pass because they've been bigoted for so long. I'm sure those same sentiments were expressed just before the civil war. "We can't consider these slave owners and defenders of owning humans as cattle to be dumb bigots, just people that may need to have a bit of time to digest change, rather than having it rammed down their throats...". Strange how these folks never seem to express any empathy for the ones being discriminated against who have, for decades or longer, had hate, discrimination, ridicule, prejudice and, in the past, even enslavement rammed down their throats.
Obama's ideology if you bothered to really listen to or read him is that of a "pragmatic revolution"
In other words continuing the incrementalism approach to transition from capitalism that was begun by Woodrow Wilson and continued by FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Obama.
Anything Marxist is a radical departure from our nation's values
it's not about hatred of anyone. Christians are called to not only obey the moral standards of Christ, but to call all people to repent who do not live to God's moral standards.
What we have is a people on the left who have reduced their standards of morality. We all hate murder and rape, but it doesn't mean left or right that we hate them. the difference here is that our list from God still includes acts of immorality that you on the left no longer agree with.
What they state has no effect on my blood pressure. I expect the reprobate to continue to have reprobate minds.
“ And because they thought it was worthless to embrace the true knowledge of God, God gave them over to a worthless mind-set, to break all rules of proper conduct.
Although they are fully aware of God’s laws and proper order, and knowing that those who do all of these things deserve to die, yet they still go headlong into darkness, encouraging others to do the same and applauding them when they do!” Romans 1:28,32
The Greek word in the text translated here as worthless (reprobate in the King James) is adokimos
Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words ( b ) of persons, Rom 1:28 , of a "reprobate mind," a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by Him, the effect of refusing "to have God in their knowledge;
We all hate murder and rape, but it doesn't mean left or right that we hate them. the difference here is that our list from God still includes acts of immorality that you on the left no longer agree with.
So to you, the only difference between consenting same sex adults choosing to be in a committed loving relationship and "murder and rape" is that the left doesn't consider the gay couple immoral anymore? I hate to break it to you but the actual difference is that murder and rape ARE NOT CONSENSUAL. They are violent acts forced upon another unwilling participant aka the victim. With gay marriage, sex before marriage, casual sex, even group sex, it's consensual with ZERO victims and none of your or anyone else's damn business.
You can counsel others all you want telling them the virtues of obeying the moral standards of Christ, but when you vote to restrict someone else's rights to the same benefits such as marriage that you enjoy, essentially forcing your religious moral code on others contrary to the constitutions establishment clause, that makes you a grade A hypocrite. So go out and tell everyone how you think they should live, that's your right, but when you cross the line trying to inject your religion into secular law, expect to get metaphorically smacked so hard your grandkids will have black eyes.
“And because they thought it was worthless to embrace the true knowledge of God, God gave them overto a worthless mind-set, to break all rules of proper conduct.
Good thing our secular government can't enforce your sect's twisted sharia laws, eh?
.
it's not about hatred of anyone.
LOL. Not only is it obviously hate, its a rather greedy effort to privilege yourself while harming the people you disfavor.
To eliminate any diatribes, yes I do support equal rights for everyone but I am not quite yet 95. It will come, give it the time needed.
I'm not quite sure how to take that part of your comment. Are you saying that those who are denied civil right should sit down and shut up until a bigoted majority grants them a favor?
Or are you saying that there's been a lot of progress on this front and people should be patient? Even that has its problems.
So go out and tell everyone how you think they should live, that's your right, but when you cross the line trying to inject your religion into secular law, expect to get metaphorically smacked so hard your grandkids will have black eyes.
Bingo.
The funny part is that Larry still denies that when he voted for Prop h8 that he was trying to harm gays or use the state to enforce his nutty and bigoted sharia laws.
Although they are fully aware of God’s laws and proper order, and knowing that those who do all of these things deserve to die
Yes, we all know if you got your wish everyone you look down your nose at, all the Am ha'aretz, would be dead in the streets. We all know you dream of the liberals, progressives, gays, Muslims and anyone else who doesn't look like or believe like you being rounded up and slaughtered. And you claim to worship a loving God. Apparently his love is limited by his jealousy and quirky desire to control what humans do with their genitals. An all powerful being that supposedly gets violently angry when the tiny ants it created don't bow down and worship it or chose to love a different ant than the ones God wanted them to. That sounds real sane. /s
Are you saying that those who are denied civil right should sit down and shut up until a bigoted majority grants them a favor?
Absolutely not, what I am saying is that it takes some folks longer to evolve than others and may not at all. I tend to attempt to look at life as others may, through their lens and some lenses are blurrier than others.
As I stated, my parents for example would never have been able to get around the notion of same sex marriage, it was a different time and I would not think ill of them or any other of the same ilk.
I have gotten it down to it's lowest denominator personally, equal rights for everyone period and for some folks you'll just have to wait.
Let's not forget that Larry's odious theocratic views are shared by the vast majority of Republicans and by virtually all Trump voters. Why else would they vote for a sociopathic bigot who promised to appoint anti-gay judges in order to reverse marriage equality?
No you missed my point. What I care about is how God sees us.
I oppose all laws concerning behavior that doesn't directly harm another- so I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution.
I oppose all government involvement in marriage or divorce for everyone. It's none of the government's business and that's how it was until the government passed the 1927 marriage and divorce act which was designed purely to ban interracial marriages.
He's gonna get push back if he keeps that shit up. He needs to mind his own fucking business
We do have freedom of speech so he has every right to stand on the street corner and spout his moral code at anyone who will listen. He can come on these forums and shout his moral indignation all day, that's his right and I'd never try to take that away from him. We have religious freedom which is integral to the America ideal of being a melting pot welcoming all. It's only when he goes to a voting booth and votes for specific candidates that have promised to inject religious morality into secular society through our legislature that he crosses the line and proves he's not really an American but a theocrat who would abandon American law in lieu of religious law in an instant. The constitution means nothing to theocrats if they feel it conflicts with their interpretation of the bible. Religious conservatives are really just one charismatic leader hoping to start a religious war away from picking up their weapons are opening fire on fellow American citizens who just don't happen to share their faith.
I oppose all government involvement in marriage or divorce for everyone. It's none of the government's business and that's how it was until the government passed the 1927 marriage and divorce act which was designed purely to ban interracial marriages.
Except that's not what you were voting for when you voted for Prop h8 in an effort to deny gays the same rights which you and the majority enjoy.
In fact you even admitted that it was an effort to impose your twisted sharia laws on the people you hate and cause them legal harm. This is what you said at the time:
just because a tiny minority of the population is engaged in perverse behaviors and has support from others with immoral minds, does not mean that we have to stop opposing the legal recognition of perversion as equal to normal behavior.
So the bans on gay marriage weren't based on Christian moral laws? How about the hundreds of blue laws against selling alcohol on Sundays in several dozen States? Even "sodomy" was banned in most States which even banned wives from giving their husbands BJ's. How about the religious conservatives trying to reverse Roe V Wade because they imagine an invisible immortal soul is created at conception?
It's only when he goes to a voting booth and votes for specific candidates that have promised to inject religious morality into secular society through our legislature that he crosses the line and proves he's not really an American but a theocrat who would abandon American law in lieu of religious law in an instant.
And yet Larry denies being a theocrat despite the fact that he admits trying to use the state to enforce his perverse sect's sharia laws.
Canon law , Latin jus canonicum, body of laws made within certain Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, independent churches of Eastern Christianity, and the Anglican Communion) by lawful ecclesiastical authority for the government of both the whole church and parts thereof and of the behaviour and ...
For our Christian friends. There is also Mosaic law and I am sure sans a few obscure exceptions that most organized religions have their own little books of dos and dont's
Civil rights generally advance in societies with the funeral of one bigot at a time.
Unfortunately the terminal solution is not the answer, bigotry is like an old rifle passed down from father to son. Education and time for me, but you very well could be correct.
I don't believe in rounding up anyone. I'm a Christian Minarchist which is a form of libertarianism
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government
Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.
Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights.
i oppose any civil law that attempts to involve the state in marriage including defining marriage.
While I consider abortion to be murder I stopped seeking to overturn Roe 37 years ago because I understand that only a change in the hearts of women will stop them from choosing to murder their babies in order to satisfy their life style choices.
Obama's ideology if you bothered to really listen to or read him is that of a "pragmatic revolution"
In other words continuing the incrementalism approach to transition from capitalism that was begun by Woodrow Wilson and continued by FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Obama.
Anything Marxist is a radical departure from our nation's values
Do you consider Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon and Carter 'radical marxists' too?
Unfortunately the terminal solution is not the answer, bigotry is like an old rifle passed down from father to son.
There's no doubt that it's learned behavior but the age demographics on these issues make my point clear. It's only the elderly today where a majority hold these bigoted views. Of course white evangelical Protestants like Larry are a huge problem too - only a small minority of that group supports equal civil rights, but that group has always held all kinds of bigoted views against various people including blacks, Jews, gays and women.
Civil rights generally advance in societies with the funeral of one bigot at a time
Even the most virulent racists, dripping with bitter hate, eventually find peace. It is the inevitability of our mortality, and the worms can't tell the difference between a devout white supremacist Christian corpse and a dark skinned transgender atheist immigrant one, we're all equal when that time comes.
i oppose any civil law that attempts to involve the state in marriage including defining marriage.
And yet you only voted to deny gays the same marital rights you enjoyed. That sounds like a theocratic impulse coupled with a desire for special rights and privileged status.
.
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible.
LOL....right. That's why you voted for a new sharia law to expand government into the personal lives and legal contracts of gay couples. A true small government advocate would have voted against Prop h8, not for it. It's clear you're not merely a hypocrite and a theocrat with anti-gay views, but you want MORE government in the lives of the minorities you hate.
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government
Bla bla bla
Libertarians, anarchists, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, all of these "freedom" ideologies want to dictate how much and exactly what government will be. How does that make you any different from socialists or "Democrats" who have their own requirements of a government?
Everyone wants a government to suit their desires. I guess that is why we have elections. How many elections have minarchists or libertarians won again?
Of course they were marxists. They each implemented sections of Marx's steps to transition from capitalism to Communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
Simple John which is why you don't understand. Your Democrats want to ever increase the role of government which mean less and less individual liberty whereas minarchists like myself want to maximize liberty
minarchists and libertarians ruled our country from it's beginning until we became subjects with the passing of the 16th amendment
i oppose any civil law that attempts to involve the state in marriage including defining marriage
Well then I applaud you. One question though, did you happen to vote for any Republican congressmen or Senators who do support civil laws trying to ban gay marriage or push to overturn Roe v Wade?
I must disagree, people evolve over time. Seems to me there was a moment when Mr. Obama did not fully embrace the idea of same sex marriage. Did that make Him a bigot? Me thinks not, just someone who required a bit more time to hash it out.
In my parents case, it was not a matter of bigotry simply a matter of something that was unheard of at that time.
Since I made the mistake of voting for Nixon whom Noam Chomsky correctly said was our most liberal president since FDR, the only Republican at any level of office I have voted for was Reagan.
Your Democrats want to ever increase the role of government which mean less and less individual liberty whereas minarchists like myself want to maximize liberty
That statement belies your vote for Prop h8 which expanded government and reduced liberty.
Seems to me there was a moment when Mr. Obama did not fully embrace the idea of same sex marriage. Did that make Him a bigot? Me thinks not, just someone who required a bit more time to hash it out.
Obama first came out in support of marriage equality in 1995/6, twice on the record. Once he started running for national office he started pandering to dumb bigots (like the Southern Baptists at Rick Warren's Saddleback church), but even there he always drew a careful distinction between his religious views and his public policy support for full and equal rights. And note that at that same time he was campaigning against Prop h8 and running on a platform which promised to repeal DADT and DOMA. So as his campaign manager noted in his memoir, the only ones who didn't understand Obama's real views were the ones who weren't paying attention.
What gets me is why did Obama ever bother pandering to dumb bigots at a white evangelical church? Did he think they were going to vote for a black guy? How naive.
That's not to say that there aren't people who actually do evolve on the issue. Such people should be applauded but there's no doubt that they held bigoted views before they dropped them.
.
In my parents case, it was not a matter of bigotry simply a matter of something that was unheard of at that time.
They may have been unwitting bigots and may not have help much anti-gay animus, but it's simply not credible to claim that it wasn't bigotry.
Of course they [ Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon and Carter ] were marxists. They each implemented sections of Marx's steps to transition from capitalism to Communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
Not sure there is any point trying to reason with someone who thinks Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Obama were all 'radical marxists'.
Seems to me any overlap of a liberal / progressive policy you deem to be supporting Marxism and thus the PotUS in support is a 'radical marxist'. If all these PotUS' were 'radical marxists' they all did an entirely crappy job since our nation remains heavily capitalistic with an increased level of economic control by transnationals and less economic control by individuals - by the people.
My guess is that your choice of language such as 'radical marxist' is simply designed for emotive effect.
When it is all said and written, historians will look back at this administration as the last gasp fight of privilege vs. inclusion.
None of us should be surprised to see that either. Not only is it a predictably reactionary phase following a progressive phase but it really is the last gasp of an unduly privileged group, a group I'm a member of. Just based on demography I should be the perfect GOP voter. LOL.
It sounds like we both live in "interesting" states except in recent years yours has become more blue and mine more red than they've been historically.
But this year there's a good chance my drooling wingnut guv (Scott Walker) will lose to a highly experienced educator.
In my parents case, it was not a matter of bigotry simply a matter of something that was unheard of at that time.
Luther, I'm not trying to attack your parents or anyone else for that matter. I'm simply saying that just because bigotry was the norm, that doesn't mean its not bigotry. So yes, in your parents case, it was a matter of bigotry, it was just far more accepted and common in their day and stereotypes were taught to kids as fact by bigoted parents and grandparents. What I think you're trying to say is that your parents were no different than most people of their time, and you're right, but that doesn't mean they weren't all raging bigots taught to label and hate from an early age which is why it was just a part of their lives they've never really questioned.
So yes, in your parents case, it was a matter of bigotry, it was just far more accepted and common in their day and stereotypes were taught to kids as fact by bigoted parents and grandparents.
I have a 96 year old uncle who holds those bigoted views......and he's gay and deeply in the closet.
I have a 96 year old uncle who holds those bigoted views......and he's gay and deeply in the closet.
Sadly, some who were indoctrinated since childhood but grew up to find themselves having feelings that were verboten developed a version of self loathing which is then projected onto others. The saying "The lady doth protest, too much, me thinks..." touches on this phenomenon. Some of the most active anti-gay activists are actually gay, they have just convinced themselves it's pure evil and a manifestation of an invisible evil spirit creature thus they tend to overcompensate in their exuberance in trying to stomp it out.
"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" - Matthew 16:23
I'm sure there are many closeted religious conservatives who daydream about Satan being "behind" them...
let us work toward voting electronically...it will engage the younger generation and it is inevitable.
Far better to adopt the vote by mail & universal registration system which OR, WA and CO use. Oregon has the highest voter participation rate in the country as a result and there are several other key benefits like a near-zero rate of fraud, no lines, and no need to take off work.
GOP Voters Vow Not To Vote Republican While Trump Is President
One would have to ask why not?
While I myself have been shall we say a tad irritated by the GOP standing quietly on the sidelines while Mr. Trump slashes and burns His way through the globe. I would not dismiss a viable and worthwhile candidate based on their party affiliation, that is just illogical to me.
But then again, I vote for individuals and what they might bring to the table not blindly based on party. Full disclosure, I have had a hard time finding a viable GOP candidate to vote for of late as they all seem to have gone bat shit crazy.
Former GOP senator John Warner said the other day that his party has gone so far off the rails that he's voting for the Dem in several key races.
Former Virginia GOP Sen. John Warner tells NBC News he is endorsing several Democrats for Congress in 2018, including Abigail Spanberger, who is challenging GOP Rep. Dave Brat in Virginia’s seventh congressional district.
Now is the time to rise above politics, Warner, a dean of the Virginia Republican Party, told NBC News.
“It goes beyond politics now. I’m a Republican, I’ll finish a Republican as I cruise through my 91st year. But you’ve got to put the nation’s interests and the state’s interests ahead of politics,” Warner told NBC in a phone interview.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
And I could call an apple, an orange but it still wouldn’t make it one.
The Picture accompanying this seed is one of the more stupid and divisive pictures one could post. As this is a seed, shouldn't you be using illustrations from the actual article?
(Sparty On-sorry this comment falls in your string-not meant towards you).
It's all they got ..... if you disagree with them they brand you stupid or some such partisan vitriol.
But hey, haters gotta hate ..... they can't help themselves ....
So, partisan vitriol for partisan vitriol huh? How very sly of you. NOT!
When one side says "Two plus two is four." and the other side says "No it isn't, two plus two is banana." it's hard not to call the latter group stupid. 100% of all scientists agree that two plus two is four, 97% of them agree that the climate is being negatively effected by man causing more rapid climate change which is based on mountains of climate science and data. 97% of right wing know-nothings don't believe the climate is being effected by man contrary to all evidence. That's pretty stupid. Sure, they come up with all sorts of excuses not to believe two plus two is four, but the fact remains, they reject science because they have a deep seated desire not to believe it. It's not based on science or facts, just their gut that's been manipulated by the fossil fuel industry that employs many of these climate deniers.
Working hard to convince someone that two plus two does in fact equal four is what you do for someone you care about, it's not hate but love. If I'd been indoctrinated to believe that what I saw as "Red" was actually called green, I'd hope someone who knew the truth would correct me so I didn't go around sounding stupid when I tell them to stop at a green light or to let the green fire truck pass.
Nah, just pointing our the ridiculously disingenuous nature of the seed topic. Well ..... okay .... i'm sure there is a percentage of Repubs who actually did what the seed alleges.
Albeit a VERY small percentage but i suppose one can define "many" however they choose.
Yeah well, the problem with your logic there is that is doesn't apply to opinions. The mathematical result of two plus two is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not an opinion. The meme .... is an opinion.
What the seed meme is saying is not provable (and/or hasn't been proven here) and is only valid as partisan rhetoric. It's simply an unprovable "sweeping" generalization. Now if the meme said "some" instead of "vast majority" it might be on to something as it would clearly be less disingenuous.
But being sincere doesn't always push the preferred political narrative now does it?
I remember either Perrie or one of the mods stating this, but I can't find it in our rules. They also said that if the article didn't have a photo, we could use one that's related to the content of the article.
Who is doing that? Of course humans aren't solely responsible for climate change, the climate has been changing since the planet was formed 4.5 billion years ago. What the super, super majority (97%) of climate scientists agree on is that human activity is having a measured effect on speeding up climate change in a direction that is bad for a large portion of humanity. Sure, some sections of the globe might get nicer because of the more rapid climate shift, we're growing wine grapes in California further north than ever before because of this. But we're literally watching the Maldives wash away in the tides, hurricanes are significantly more sever on average, we're experiencing 100 year flood every few years, not every century as would be expected. Human activity has had a major effect and I agree that there's not a lot we can do about the damage already done, all we can do is shift to a less destructive, less impactful footprint that will allow the rapid climate changes to at least slow down and at the same time we need to adapt how we live to deal with the climate we now have. Design housing to withstand 1000 year flooding instead of 100 year flooding, build better levies, dikes and damns along our most effected coastlines. Pollute less, adapt more. That should be the easy motto of anyone, even climate deniers, because just like two plus two is four, you cannot deny the damage humans have already had on the planet, from Chernobyl to the thousands of chemical spill superfund sites across America.
E.A Have you tried Seeding, have a go and see what it wants for it to be activated!
So I Agree with You, that the Photo should be autoloaded from the seeding article, so why is it not the way it is set up?
The "97% of Scientists say manmade global warming is settled science" is a MYTH
The myth of "settled science" which is a non scientific term
Settled Science? No Such Thing
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE
By Professor Steven Yates
November 7, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
The 97% myth
Evidence Of Anthropogenic Global Warming
There are quite a few references with supporting data in this article.
You just can't get enough pictures of Donald Trump, huh? It's lunchtime, and that is the last thing I would want to see.
I can counter every post you make with links to scientists who refute the hoax of AGW
You can provide links which claim a hoax, that is all. The fact that you categorically dismiss AGW illustrates that you employ zero objective reasoning in this matter. An extreme position based -it would seem- on emotion and ideology rather than evidence.
There are virtually no scientists who say that man has zero effect on our climate. Some, a very small number who mostly work for the fossil fuel industry, claim that climate is changing on its own and we have only a tiny almost imperceptible effect on it. They make this claim because their financial welfare is dependent on not changing the way we extract, package, sell and consume fossil fuels. What they are essentially disputing is that if climate change were the speed at which a car was traveling down hill, how can we exactly tell whether its the hill and gravities effect on the car that is moving it at that speed and speeding up, or is it the foot on a gas peddle that is adding to the ever increasing speed. If the engine were turned off, would the car be going as fast? 97% of climate scientists say no, of course not, the engine of mankind is accelerating the speed of the climate car adding to the natural downhill rolling speed.
I had one of my pictures changed and when I asked I was told it was a protection measure to protect the site-some excerpts of conversation:
"This has to do with if I can be given a cease and desist from a lawyer, which I can live without."
"The pics for the articles are supposed to come from the source. When it is obvious, like yours was, I change them. This is all about copyright law, and I do it all the time,"
Not about me, it's about the rules of the site, as explained by the owner.
Then PM a MOD or the Advisor but stop bitching about it on an open forum. It's a crybaby move and you used to be better than this.
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
N o significant cause-and-effect from CO 2 on the global surface temperature, i.e. on climate . The global temperature was decreasing from 1940 to 1975. Since 1998 the global temperature has not increased, rather showing a decreasing trend, while the very low CO 2 level in air apparently is steadily rising. Tom V Segalstad, University of Oslo
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO 2 : on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad
Mineralogical-Geological Museum
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Norway
Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949.
University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo.
Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA.
At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo.
Past Head There is of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo (for a total of 12 years).
Past Head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
Member of different international and national professional working groups and committees, including Expert Reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
Robert H. Essenhigh
Credentials
Ph.D., Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield (1959).
M.S., Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge (1955).
B.A., Natural Sciences, University of Cambridge (1951)
Essenhigh's area of study has been the effect of chemical kinetics on the rate of coal combustion.
Stance on Climate Change
Essenhigh believes that after the next 20 years, the Earth “will begin to cool into a new ice age.”
“'At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide,' he said. 'And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does.'” [2]
“The outcome is that the global warming advocate’s conclusion on the role of CO2 evidently has it back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.”
March 7, 2008
OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND CO2
Global Climate Change Has Natural Causes
by Lance Endersbee
Professor Endersbee is the former Dean of Engineering and former Pro-Vice Chancellor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
It is my belief that:
• Climate change is a characteristic feature of the dynamic system of the Earth, Sun, and Cosmos.
• Air pollution and global warming are scientifically separate issues.
• Emissions of carbon dioxide are not a cause of global climate change.
• Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life.
• The solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans decreases with an increase in sea temperature, and increases with cooling.
• The oceans breathe carbon dioxide in and out with the seasons, and with major climate changes such as El Niño and
La Niña events.
• The vast surface area of the oceans determines the interchange of gases between the atmosphere and the oceans.
• There is no need for carbon trading, or geosequestration.
• Carbon trading is the result of fear mongering about global warming by the IPCC and others.
• Carbon trading has not arisen from market forces, and presents enormous risks to investors.
• When it is recognized that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, carbon trading will collapse.
• The vast areas of black pavements and dark buildings in large cities cause local heating, called an urban heat island effect.
• The deadly pollution of dust, acid gases, and water vapor entering the atmosphere in many world cities adds to the
heat island effect.
• Such cities can be most unhealthy places. The problems are local, not global, and correction to this man-made pollution
must be industry- and city-centered.
The Sun Drives Our Climate
The major driving forces causing climatic variations on Earth are the variations in the full spectrum of radiation of the
Sun, the variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the varying gravitational influence of the larger planets on the
Sun, and the influence of cosmic radiation on both the Sun and the Earth.
Geez Mom, you promised to stop following me around all the time. I promise I'll stop at the drug store and pick up your happy pills on the way home.
When you are a moderator, that may be acceptable, but until then, it isn't.
Not a single thing in the entirety of what you posted presents any actual evidence against anthropogenic global climate change. All they say is that some have turned the fact that the climate is changing into a dogma, into an ideology, which to some is alarming or "concerning". They also point out the primary drivers of climate change like the Sun which has never been refuted by climate scientists. And while facts like "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life." are true, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any effect on global temperatures, especially when the warming trends lead to increased release of the gas into the atmosphere.
I've never had that happen (yet). Anyway, it's now a moot point for this seed, because the seeder changed his photo.
I wish he'd also flag all of the off-topic comments about global warming/climate change, because they have nothing to do with his seeded topic.
[Removed]
Of course you have. AGW is also a political issue and both sides will be providing their arguments. In the 1960's you would have seen plenty of 'objective reasoning' from professional scientists insisting that lead in gasoline was causing no ill effects when dispersed from exhaust pipes. You might also remember the active campaigns providing 'objective reasoning' that countered the claim that smoking was hazardous to one's health. So sure, you have seen plenty of counter arguments to AGW. There are very good business reasons (short term bottom line) to fight against AGW motivated changes.
Now, per this context, LFOD categorically rejects AGW. Rejects the very idea that anthropogenic factors are affecting our climate in a significant way. Do you agree with him that we should ignore the findings of worldwide climate scientists (et. al.) and continue to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Do you think that God has our back and will not allow us to slowly kill future generations?
There are plenty of realistic actions. But I agree that we do not have enough understanding to state with certainty our optimal course of practical action. But that is no excuse for not taking prudent, sensible steps such as reducing carbon emissions from industry, automobiles, etc. through technology and conservative usage (e.g. carpooling). Using less fossil-fuel sourced energy in general by reducing waste in direct energy (e.g. weatherization, smart thermostats), recycling, producing less waste products (e.g. trash, drain water), etc. are measures available to everyone and are sensible measures regardless of AGW.
Actually we do know how the Grand Canyon was formed (the Colorado river) and when (beginning 5 to 6 million years ago).
Didn't know that there were still science deniers here. A shame really. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
LOL. You hold some very peculiar notions.
True, an apple can never be an orange but any Republican can become a Democrat, or a decline to state, simply by declaring that it is so.
True and any Dem "can" and "have" become Repubs ..... either way, a more meaningless point i'm not sure there is .....
PoliticusUSA?
Says all that needs to be said.....
Q: Do you usually vote Democrat?
GOP Voter: No. Registered Republican.
Q: Why vote for Sinema, then?
GOP Voter: To change things up.
GOP Voter: Not too happy with the state of the Republican party right now.
GOP Voter: I’m a former Republican, and I’m taking a break from voting for any Republicans as long as Donald Trump is president.
Q: Why not Martha McSally?
GOP Voter: She’ll support his policies.
Politicus USA has nothing to do with it, That is from a segment made by NBC.
NBC stands for Now Bullshitting Clearly; as the link at the bottom goes straight to Rachel Maddow for more discussion. Definitely skewed news.
But whatever lets the deranged left sleep at night.
Do you think the Republican voters interviewed were actors?
Yeah, the George Will's of the world ..... complete with corn cobb shoved three quarters the way up their ass ....
There have always been leftist Republicans- they are part of the longstanding Rockefeller Democratic Socialist Wing
Apparently, to you anyone who doesn't live in the woods killing their own game, living off the land and reading the bible to each other by candlelight each night, are socialists.
Speaking of fools, what would you call a Republican who continues to support someone who now lies 30 times every day?
Wrong. I call those who support statist control of our lives with a communist progressive income tax and redistribution of wealth programs through forced collectivism to be socialist.
The descriptive adjective you seem to seek is ‘statist’.
[deleted]
That is just a vague claim; at the Pee Wee Herman level even.
Tossing around words such as 'communist' and 'socialist' illustrates a lack of understanding. At the very least you should realize that those words are so overloaded nowadays as to be meaningless. They largely connote a non-specific 'bad' (merely emotive) to most people so at best you are using them as swear words.
What is your objection to using words that have clear meaning such as 'statist' - especially when the words express the meaning you seem to wish to impart?
When we want to insult each other in our family we call them communist or comrade. You're right, communist has become a joke word.
BTW, loved the Pee Wee Herman remark. LOL!
I use Statist here quite often and I differentiate between types of Statist Governments. Our is one driving towards a type of Marxist Statism that embraces elements of communism and utilizes as Marx stated, socialism as the transition period between capitalism and communism.
So we have members of the Democratic party in and out of Congress who are members of the Communist Party, many are members of Socalist Party Organizations.
The debate among Democrats is the same one Hitler had about Nazism vs Communism. Hitler said that both embraced marxist thought but the difference was in the end goals. Communism's goal is anarchy whereas Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others want an all Powerful State to administer Marxist ideology
Does the same hold true for bigot/bigotry, misogynist and racist? .....
Did you know that 'irony' is said to be the most misused word in the English language?
Personally, no. The meaning of bigot, misogynist and racist are rather well defined. People are often improperly labeled as such but the words themselves have clear meaning.
In contrast, the words socialism and communism (and variants) have been rendered meaningless in the vernacular being overloaded with many contradictory meanings.
This:
Contradicts:
Why?:
You are suggesting that our government is moving towards communism. Our government is thus (per you) moving towards a system whose goal is anarchy (per your odd declaration)?
(In simple terms: anarchy is the absence of government.)
try to read it in context
Our [government] is one driving towards a type of Marxist Statism that embraces elements of communism and utilizes as Marx stated, socialism as the transition period between capitalism and communism.
There are multiple models of Marxist ideology that range from Communism to totalitarian Statist governments
Stalin, Hitler, and Castro all directed totalitarian Statist governments that embraced Marxist economics. However they differed with Marx on the end result. Marx agreed with Hegel on temporarily having a powerful Statist Government to transition to the end goal of communism which is ultimately one of anarchy
And you mixed the different meanings of communism to produce the contradiction I noted. And I did not even bother to mention other problems with your posts such as claiming Stalin, Hitler or Castro embraced the economic model of Marx (one in which the workers would have economic control in absolute contrast to the systems of the aforementioned dictators).
I've got a couple local Dems that i'm voting for.
Good, moderate people who aren't part of the fringe left wing hive. People who simply want to represent their electorate fairly and not be told what to do by fundamentalist lunatics.
Are these the same people that say the #WalkAway movement doesn't exist? SOunds like not reporting the news, but trying to shape it.
But the #WalkAway movement doesn't exist. Who was the main person in some of their 'propaganda'? A Russian spy.
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this 'touchy - feely' article. It's quite laughable to think that economic numbers and jobs reports are 'meaningless' and it's all about how they 'feel'.
That's why the original article should have been tagged as "Opinion". Real journalism is based upon facts ... not feelings.
laughable, or... how to spot liberal bs from a mile away... LOL
cheers
Well Don, you've gone and done it again triggering the right's primal fears...
Something tells me Wednesday all the naysaying nabobs will all disappear.
What's the matter .... having trouble with opposing opinions again?
Awwwww .... poor baby .........
It wasn't the Right who's been crying, screaming, and triggered for 2 years, JBB. They didn't wear safety pins, dream about blowing up the WH, threaten to leave the country, and need safe spaces, comfort pets, crayons, and coloring books.
lol. I don't think you want me to post depictions of Trumpsters over the past 2 years.
Why would you think that I would care or possibly be offended about what you or anyone posts, John? I can assure you that NT isn't as important to me as it is to others who seem to live on this site.
do ya promise?
How many people does it take to make a 'group' .. 3 to 5? .. 5 to 9? 10 or more?
Well we will all find out when we wake up on the 7th. I would be thankful for that day when the mid-terms have finally concluded. But my thanks would be short lived indeed as that will be the 1st day of the 2020 Presidential campaign (even though it seems that the 2016 campaign continues), hold on to your hats boys and girls this is going to be an even wackier two years.
Oh, Luther! You just had to go and say that! It's like Mr Giggles telling me the Farmer's Almanac is calling for ice storms this year while I was musing on the great weather we had on Saturday.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news:)
Seriously, I wish we would do as the Brits. I believe once the candidates have been selected they have thirty days or so to make their case, not round the clock eternal campaigning to the point of nauseam as we have here. If that were the case, our politicians might actually be able to concentrate on what they were elected for in the first place.
The Mr. Giggles thing made me smile.
The endless campaigning is tiresome.
I don't recall a President having as many 'rallies' as the current 'president' though. I mean between golfing, watching Fux 'news', tweeting on the crapper, and 'rallies' - what the hell does this 'president' do?
He barely even has time to cheat on his wife, again... His tiny hands are probably totally out of pussy grabbing practice, though maybe he's keeping those diminutive digits limber with the constant texting on the toilet.
According to the article's video, a "group" is 3 people who claim to be registered Republicans. Yep, that's a balanced representation of 1,288,332 registered Republicans. Thanks, Politicus and MSNBC for your stellar journalism!
Trump has divided this country so badly, I don't think it is ever possible to repair the damage he and his minions have caused.
Hussein Obama spent his entire presidency trying to divide this country.
That can only be true from the perspective that his skin color was bringing division in some bigoted minds. I'm a straight white male who watched the entire 8 years of his Presidency and saw none of the false rhetoric GOP talking points and white supremacists claims of division you're repeating.
It had nothing to do with his skin color. That's your inability to actually argue the substance.
Everything comes down to skin color to the left. It is their main weapon. They use it as a wedge to divide the country and even a slight tap on that wedge can widen the gap.
It was your inability to articulate a valid argument by citing any examples of the supposed division you claim was a theme throughout his two terms. You have eight years to come up with something and all you give is generic rhetoric without a shred of evidence. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the real supposed division you are referring to must be the one thing that was continuous from the day he took office to the day he left it, his skin color.
here you go
Obama hasn’t been divisive just because his policies are so unpopular, though that’s a large part of it. He has intentionally engaged in identity politics, trying to pit groups of people against each other on the basis of race, gender, religion, economic earnings and sexual orientation.
He has pitted labor against management, creating an adversarial and litigious climate.
He has demonized private jet owners, domestic energy producers (oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy), corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, businesses, executives, financial institutions, insurance companies, doctors, tea partiers, small-town inhabitants (bitter clingers), immigration enforcement advocates and the so-called 1 percenters.
Obama most polarizing president in modern history
By Alexandra Jaffe , CNN
Updated 6:59 AM ET, Fri February 6, 2015
All of that and claiming that he is the third greatest president in history on national TV after only a few months in office.....
Talk about arrogance, eliteism, He did have a high opinion of himself.......
Barack Obama is still The Most Admired Man in the USA.
Trump is not...
Admired by whom? Hussein Obama is a lying marxist revolutionary and remains a traitor to our country. I still celebrate that he is gone every day.
I know from observation that you use the word 'marxist' to mean 'bad' but of course there is no way to tell what you think you mean when you use 'marxist' as an adjective.
So how, exactly, was Obama a 'marxist revolutionary'?
See, a Marxist revolutionary would be one who actively tried to change the economic system from capitalism to one in which the people ended up with control over their economic lives. Clearly you do not mean that so what, exactly, did Obama do (as you imagine reality) to earn the epithet 'Marxist revolutionary'?
Interesting. You hold that Obama is willing to destroy millions of lives for self aggrandizement and power with an underlying objective to make everyone else equally miserable.
( Or were you not paying attention to the discussion? )
Obama was raised by communists, mentored by a communist leader (Frank Marshall Davis), was part of a marxist revolutionary cell at Occidental College.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate as a member of the Socialist New Party
He was paired with Valerie Jarrett because she comes from a family of communist party members.
He embraces fully marx's redistribution of wealthy ideology
He supports Marx's destruction of the traditional family
Obama made it clear that he is against capitalism
Obama tells America "It doesn't work. It's never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade."
Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois. That is a published fact and beyond dispute. Here is the New Party link noting Obama as a New Party candidate for the Illinois State Senate seat that he won
Testimony from someone involved in the marxist cell at Occidental College that Obama was a member of:
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog . Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College.
Your argument is that Obama was influenced by Marxists (as if the term 'Marxist' has a specific meaning) and thus he was/is a 'radical marxist'. Given Obama was PotUS for 8 years he certainly had the best possible chance to act on his revolutionary Marxism. Yet you offer nothing that he actually did - only weak historical associations among a number of flat out misunderstandings (on your part) of what Marx sought. For example: you continue (refuse) to understand that Marx had no intention of destroying the family but was rather talking about how the family is destroyed by child labor and both parents working.
As PotUS Obama did indeed say:
But he was referring to trickle down economics. You think disagreeing with trickle down economics is 'radical marxism'??
Finally, Obama always ran as a D. He joined the New Party as a young candidate yet you failed to list what he actually did that was 'radical marxism'. And the New Party was not a socialist organization - they favored European social democracy. That is capitalism - not socialism.
I asked you to explain why you labeled Obama a 'radical marxist' and you deliver a bunch of weak associations from Obama's past, nonsense claims of wanting to destroy the traditional family and your opinion that Obama was against capitalism.
You are talking about a man who served as PotUS for eight years as -in your bizarre world- a lifelong radical 'marxist' yet you fail to show what this alleged 'radical marxist' actually did with his power and influence to bring forth radical 'marxism' in our nation.
Riiiiiight, because none of those things were in conflict before Obama. Gay's had all the same rights as any other law abiding tax paying citizen, women are paid the same as men for the same job, Christians never try and force their religious views on everyone else through legislation contrary to the constitution and black Americans and other minorities are always treated exactly the same as any other American not only in the workplace but in the justice system, then Obummer came along and ruined everything. /s
Is that really how you see this? I didn't think it possible but I suppose there could be people that are that fucking blind.
Bigot: noun - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
Religious conservatives are intolerant of lgtbq Americans who just happen to hold different moral beliefs. Thankfully our constitution specifically forbids religious conservatives, or any other religion, from establishing their religious moral code as law.
Not manufactured if misogynist conservatives continue to demand the right to take away women's choices over their own bodies and what happens to grow inside their bodies. They have been waging a war on women for at least four decades or more now.
No one says that, I don't think you want dirty air or water. I do think Republicans have been fooled by the fossil fuel industry into thinking they can do no wrong and so you're more apt to accept dirty air and water as long as your dirty paychecks keep coming in.
No one said that, I'm sure most Republicans want health insurance that's affordable and functional. At the moment, thanks to Republican obstructionists, it is neither.
Democrats made almost 150 changes to the ACA that were requested by Republicans and spent nearly a year debating it before it passed. The lies about the ACA told by the GOP could pave a road to the moon.
More pure bullshit. Obama's policies stabilized Medicare and Republicans HAVE for a long time been wanting to get rid of both Medicare and Social Security with the most recent proposal coming in the second term of G.W. Bush.
If you're profiling and just being "anti-immigrant" because you've heard a bunch of bullshit from bullshit right wing pundits, then yeah, you're likely a racist and display it when you holler about immigrants.
The Republicans are the ones caught with their hands in the racist disenfranchisement of black Americans. Multiple courts have ruled against their voter ID laws that were based on lies about the virtually non-existent illegal immigrant vote saying the GOP targeted black Americans with "surgical precision". Shows what pieces of shit you apparently support.
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
There are a bunch of fucking cowards on race in America, we saw them marching with their tiki torches, and that head of the snake was just a small sampling of the pieces of racist white supremacist to be found among the Trump faithful.
So your list doesn't actually detail a single thing Obama did to supposedly "divide" us. You list a bunch of bullshit rhetoric without any evidence to back up a single word of it, but I'm not surprised, it's what ideologues do.
Quite clearly the opponents of marriage equality and/or of equal civil rights for gays are dumb bigots. I don't see how you can even debate that point. It's like saying that those who opposed mixed-race marriage weren't racist morons. And calling civil rights a "wedge issue" just shows how far on the wrong side you really are.
The rest of your comment was delusional BS too.
Xanax?
I would have to disagree. There are many older folks (if my parents were alive they would fall into this) that will never be able to wrap their heads around this notion for varying and legitimate reasons. Although laws have been enacted it will still take a bit of time for this to become totally accepted by most (some, never).
I do not consider folks of this type to be dumb bigots, just people that may need to have a bit of time to digest change, rather than having it rammed down their throats.
To eliminate any diatribes, yes I do support equal rights for everyone but I am not quite yet 95. It will come, give it the time needed.
Boy does that burn his big fat ass and those of his supporters. Rump that is. Jealous, jealous, jealous.
As I noted, you demonstrably were not following the conversation.
I hate to tell you this but your folks held bigoted and heterosupremacist views. That those views were common or traditional at the time doesn't make them any less bigoted than those who opposed mixed-race marriage or didn't think married women should be allowed to vote or own property in their own name.
The definition of bigot doesn't have anything to do with "time" or how old someone is. I get what you're saying, that some people who have been steeped and indoctrinated in bigotry since their childhood and find nothing wrong with disparaging those they've been taught to hate with a passion aren't likely to change anytime soon. That doesn't mean we should simply give bigots a pass because they've been bigoted for so long. I'm sure those same sentiments were expressed just before the civil war. "We can't consider these slave owners and defenders of owning humans as cattle to be dumb bigots, just people that may need to have a bit of time to digest change, rather than having it rammed down their throats...". Strange how these folks never seem to express any empathy for the ones being discriminated against who have, for decades or longer, had hate, discrimination, ridicule, prejudice and, in the past, even enslavement rammed down their throats.
<snicker>
Lfod will learn at some point that debating DP AND TiG on the same day is not good for the blood pressure
Obama's ideology if you bothered to really listen to or read him is that of a "pragmatic revolution"
In other words continuing the incrementalism approach to transition from capitalism that was begun by Woodrow Wilson and continued by FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Obama.
Anything Marxist is a radical departure from our nation's values
it's not about hatred of anyone. Christians are called to not only obey the moral standards of Christ, but to call all people to repent who do not live to God's moral standards.
What we have is a people on the left who have reduced their standards of morality. We all hate murder and rape, but it doesn't mean left or right that we hate them. the difference here is that our list from God still includes acts of immorality that you on the left no longer agree with.
What they state has no effect on my blood pressure. I expect the reprobate to continue to have reprobate minds.
“ And because they thought it was worthless to embrace the true knowledge of God, God gave them over to a worthless mind-set, to break all rules of proper conduct.
Although they are fully aware of God’s laws and proper order, and knowing that those who do all of these things deserve to die, yet they still go headlong into darkness, encouraging others to do the same and applauding them when they do!” Romans 1:28,32
The Greek word in the text translated here as worthless (reprobate in the King James) is adokimos
Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words ( b ) of persons, Rom 1:28 , of a "reprobate mind," a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by Him, the effect of refusing "to have God in their knowledge;
So to you, the only difference between consenting same sex adults choosing to be in a committed loving relationship and "murder and rape" is that the left doesn't consider the gay couple immoral anymore? I hate to break it to you but the actual difference is that murder and rape ARE NOT CONSENSUAL. They are violent acts forced upon another unwilling participant aka the victim. With gay marriage, sex before marriage, casual sex, even group sex, it's consensual with ZERO victims and none of your or anyone else's damn business.
You can counsel others all you want telling them the virtues of obeying the moral standards of Christ, but when you vote to restrict someone else's rights to the same benefits such as marriage that you enjoy, essentially forcing your religious moral code on others contrary to the constitutions establishment clause, that makes you a grade A hypocrite. So go out and tell everyone how you think they should live, that's your right, but when you cross the line trying to inject your religion into secular law, expect to get metaphorically smacked so hard your grandkids will have black eyes.
Good thing our secular government can't enforce your sect's twisted sharia laws, eh?
.
LOL. Not only is it obviously hate, its a rather greedy effort to privilege yourself while harming the people you disfavor.
I'm not quite sure how to take that part of your comment. Are you saying that those who are denied civil right should sit down and shut up until a bigoted majority grants them a favor?
Or are you saying that there's been a lot of progress on this front and people should be patient? Even that has its problems.
didn't I tell you to never preach at me or quote scripture ever again at me?
He's gonna get push back if he keeps that shit up. He needs to mind his own fucking business
Bingo.
The funny part is that Larry still denies that when he voted for Prop h8 that he was trying to harm gays or use the state to enforce his nutty and bigoted sharia laws.
Yes, we all know if you got your wish everyone you look down your nose at, all the Am ha'aretz, would be dead in the streets. We all know you dream of the liberals, progressives, gays, Muslims and anyone else who doesn't look like or believe like you being rounded up and slaughtered. And you claim to worship a loving God. Apparently his love is limited by his jealousy and quirky desire to control what humans do with their genitals. An all powerful being that supposedly gets violently angry when the tiny ants it created don't bow down and worship it or chose to love a different ant than the ones God wanted them to. That sounds real sane. /s
Are you saying that those who are denied civil right should sit down and shut up until a bigoted majority grants them a favor?
Absolutely not, what I am saying is that it takes some folks longer to evolve than others and may not at all. I tend to attempt to look at life as others may, through their lens and some lenses are blurrier than others.
As I stated, my parents for example would never have been able to get around the notion of same sex marriage, it was a different time and I would not think ill of them or any other of the same ilk.
I have gotten it down to it's lowest denominator personally, equal rights for everyone period and for some folks you'll just have to wait.
Let's not forget that Larry's odious theocratic views are shared by the vast majority of Republicans and by virtually all Trump voters. Why else would they vote for a sociopathic bigot who promised to appoint anti-gay judges in order to reverse marriage equality?
No you missed my point. What I care about is how God sees us.
I oppose all laws concerning behavior that doesn't directly harm another- so I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution.
I oppose all government involvement in marriage or divorce for everyone. It's none of the government's business and that's how it was until the government passed the 1927 marriage and divorce act which was designed purely to ban interracial marriages.
No one requires you to read what I post.
[Removed]
We do have freedom of speech so he has every right to stand on the street corner and spout his moral code at anyone who will listen. He can come on these forums and shout his moral indignation all day, that's his right and I'd never try to take that away from him. We have religious freedom which is integral to the America ideal of being a melting pot welcoming all. It's only when he goes to a voting booth and votes for specific candidates that have promised to inject religious morality into secular society through our legislature that he crosses the line and proves he's not really an American but a theocrat who would abandon American law in lieu of religious law in an instant. The constitution means nothing to theocrats if they feel it conflicts with their interpretation of the bible. Religious conservatives are really just one charismatic leader hoping to start a religious war away from picking up their weapons are opening fire on fellow American citizens who just don't happen to share their faith.
Except that's not what you were voting for when you voted for Prop h8 in an effort to deny gays the same rights which you and the majority enjoy.
In fact you even admitted that it was an effort to impose your twisted sharia laws on the people you hate and cause them legal harm. This is what you said at the time:
So the bans on gay marriage weren't based on Christian moral laws? How about the hundreds of blue laws against selling alcohol on Sundays in several dozen States? Even "sodomy" was banned in most States which even banned wives from giving their husbands BJ's. How about the religious conservatives trying to reverse Roe V Wade because they imagine an invisible immortal soul is created at conception?
His freedom of speech ends at the end of my nose and the boundary of my property.
And yet Larry denies being a theocrat despite the fact that he admits trying to use the state to enforce his perverse sect's sharia laws.
that goes two ways so why don't you stop responding to me, also
Civil rights generally advance in societies with the funeral of one bigot at a time.
Canon law | religion | Britannica.com
Civil rights generally advance in societies with the funeral of one bigot at a time.
Unfortunately the terminal solution is not the answer, bigotry is like an old rifle passed down from father to son. Education and time for me, but you very well could be correct.
BS- it's not good form to lie about others.
I don't believe in rounding up anyone. I'm a Christian Minarchist which is a form of libertarianism
i oppose any civil law that attempts to involve the state in marriage including defining marriage.
While I consider abortion to be murder I stopped seeking to overturn Roe 37 years ago because I understand that only a change in the hearts of women will stop them from choosing to murder their babies in order to satisfy their life style choices.
see my post 12.4.52
Do you consider Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon and Carter 'radical marxists' too?
the Church of Rome which is not Christian is part of a theocratic government
Mosaic law applies only to Jews
There's no doubt that it's learned behavior but the age demographics on these issues make my point clear. It's only the elderly today where a majority hold these bigoted views. Of course white evangelical Protestants like Larry are a huge problem too - only a small minority of that group supports equal civil rights, but that group has always held all kinds of bigoted views against various people including blacks, Jews, gays and women.
Even the most virulent racists, dripping with bitter hate, eventually find peace. It is the inevitability of our mortality, and the worms can't tell the difference between a devout white supremacist Christian corpse and a dark skinned transgender atheist immigrant one, we're all equal when that time comes.
And yet you only voted to deny gays the same marital rights you enjoyed. That sounds like a theocratic impulse coupled with a desire for special rights and privileged status.
.
LOL....right. That's why you voted for a new sharia law to expand government into the personal lives and legal contracts of gay couples. A true small government advocate would have voted against Prop h8, not for it. It's clear you're not merely a hypocrite and a theocrat with anti-gay views, but you want MORE government in the lives of the minorities you hate.
Bla bla bla
Libertarians, anarchists, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, all of these "freedom" ideologies want to dictate how much and exactly what government will be. How does that make you any different from socialists or "Democrats" who have their own requirements of a government?
Everyone wants a government to suit their desires. I guess that is why we have elections. How many elections have minarchists or libertarians won again?
Of course they were marxists. They each implemented sections of Marx's steps to transition from capitalism to Communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
Simple John which is why you don't understand. Your Democrats want to ever increase the role of government which mean less and less individual liberty whereas minarchists like myself want to maximize liberty
minarchists and libertarians ruled our country from it's beginning until we became subjects with the passing of the 16th amendment
Well then I applaud you. One question though, did you happen to vote for any Republican congressmen or Senators who do support civil laws trying to ban gay marriage or push to overturn Roe v Wade?
I must disagree, people evolve over time. Seems to me there was a moment when Mr. Obama did not fully embrace the idea of same sex marriage. Did that make Him a bigot? Me thinks not, just someone who required a bit more time to hash it out.
In my parents case, it was not a matter of bigotry simply a matter of something that was unheard of at that time.
Since I made the mistake of voting for Nixon whom Noam Chomsky correctly said was our most liberal president since FDR, the only Republican at any level of office I have voted for was Reagan.
That statement belies your vote for Prop h8 which expanded government and reduced liberty.
Obama first came out in support of marriage equality in 1995/6, twice on the record. Once he started running for national office he started pandering to dumb bigots (like the Southern Baptists at Rick Warren's Saddleback church), but even there he always drew a careful distinction between his religious views and his public policy support for full and equal rights. And note that at that same time he was campaigning against Prop h8 and running on a platform which promised to repeal DADT and DOMA. So as his campaign manager noted in his memoir, the only ones who didn't understand Obama's real views were the ones who weren't paying attention.
What gets me is why did Obama ever bother pandering to dumb bigots at a white evangelical church? Did he think they were going to vote for a black guy? How naive.
That's not to say that there aren't people who actually do evolve on the issue. Such people should be applauded but there's no doubt that they held bigoted views before they dropped them.
.
They may have been unwitting bigots and may not have help much anti-gay animus, but it's simply not credible to claim that it wasn't bigotry.
Not sure there is any point trying to reason with someone who thinks Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Obama were all 'radical marxists'.
Seems to me any overlap of a liberal / progressive policy you deem to be supporting Marxism and thus the PotUS in support is a 'radical marxist'. If all these PotUS' were 'radical marxists' they all did an entirely crappy job since our nation remains heavily capitalistic with an increased level of economic control by transnationals and less economic control by individuals - by the people.
My guess is that your choice of language such as 'radical marxist' is simply designed for emotive effect.
None of us should be surprised to see that either. Not only is it a predictably reactionary phase following a progressive phase but it really is the last gasp of an unduly privileged group, a group I'm a member of. Just based on demography I should be the perfect GOP voter. LOL.
I think bigotry is more like an old condom passed down from father to son...
It sounds like we both live in "interesting" states except in recent years yours has become more blue and mine more red than they've been historically.
But this year there's a good chance my drooling wingnut guv (Scott Walker) will lose to a highly experienced educator.
Luther, I'm not trying to attack your parents or anyone else for that matter. I'm simply saying that just because bigotry was the norm, that doesn't mean its not bigotry. So yes, in your parents case, it was a matter of bigotry, it was just far more accepted and common in their day and stereotypes were taught to kids as fact by bigoted parents and grandparents. What I think you're trying to say is that your parents were no different than most people of their time, and you're right, but that doesn't mean they weren't all raging bigots taught to label and hate from an early age which is why it was just a part of their lives they've never really questioned.
I have a 96 year old uncle who holds those bigoted views......and he's gay and deeply in the closet.
Sadly, some who were indoctrinated since childhood but grew up to find themselves having feelings that were verboten developed a version of self loathing which is then projected onto others. The saying "The lady doth protest, too much, me thinks..." touches on this phenomenon. Some of the most active anti-gay activists are actually gay, they have just convinced themselves it's pure evil and a manifestation of an invisible evil spirit creature thus they tend to overcompensate in their exuberance in trying to stomp it out.
"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" - Matthew 16:23
I'm sure there are many closeted religious conservatives who daydream about Satan being "behind" them...
Typical right wing lie
Far better to adopt the vote by mail & universal registration system which OR, WA and CO use. Oregon has the highest voter participation rate in the country as a result and there are several other key benefits like a near-zero rate of fraud, no lines, and no need to take off work.
GOP Voters Vow Not To Vote Republican While Trump Is President
One would have to ask why not?
While I myself have been shall we say a tad irritated by the GOP standing quietly on the sidelines while Mr. Trump slashes and burns His way through the globe. I would not dismiss a viable and worthwhile candidate based on their party affiliation, that is just illogical to me.
But then again, I vote for individuals and what they might bring to the table not blindly based on party. Full disclosure, I have had a hard time finding a viable GOP candidate to vote for of late as they all seem to have gone bat shit crazy.
Former GOP senator John Warner said the other day that his party has gone so far off the rails that he's voting for the Dem in several key races.
Warner is typical of the Rockefeller socialist Republicans. Voting for ANY Democrat is voting for the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
More along the lines of what can be described as an individual sane Republican capable of free thought and the gumption to speak the truth.
As an aside, I've read many of your comments and I must ask:
Who is not a Socialist, Rockefeller, really? I am sure He is chuckling away.
And many repubs are a typical tea party fuck ups