The Right Side of the News

Investigations against Democrats seldom get very far because of news media bias. But this time I was mainly thinking about the LACK of investigation into the Hunter Biden involvement with Ukraine. I know it's claimed by liberal columnists that it's all been debunked, but not everyone agrees.WEISS: No, Hunter Biden’s Corruption Hasn’t Been ‘Debunked’ | The Daily Caller The most notable ones are, of course, the 'Russian involvement in the 2016 election', and the 'Trump seeking foreign help in defeating Biden in the 2020 election', to name just two. You're assuming all conspiracy theories are perfectly comparable one on one, that they all have the same costs and consequences. The two that I mentioned above alone would need about 100 conservative ones against liberals to offset them, concerning their enormous costs to the U.S. in terms of taxpayer money, and lawmakers wasted time.And you probably know I have to go to work in the morning, and don't have time for rabbit trails.

"fiscal sanity" - was Obama more fiscally sane than Trump? Which of today's Democrat presidential candidates are more fiscally sane than Trump?"Strong defense"?? Trump is for less defense than Obama, or Biden/Sanders/Warren?Right now, Iran seems to be a little bit worse player than Russia. Then why was he, and you, mystified about what Republicans stand for? Did you forget about the more basic ones that I mentioned? He's not perfect, I absolutely agree that he's been less than perfect with his fiscal responsibility promises. But so has presidents before him, they all seem to learn the hard way, just how hard it is to undo big government spending of the past. But the economy is good, Republicans are willing to give him more time based on that alone. I think he'll get a bigger margin of votes for his second term than he did his first. Every two term president has since FDR, except one. Obama. Not at all, he didn't even address illegal immigrants. It would have been ugly if he had. Yes, LEGALLY. About 3 years and three months ago they might have. Three years and two months ago, voters, both Republicans and swing voters, decided it was time to try something slightly different. They now have plenty of jobs, a good economy, and the second coming of Osama Bin Laden dead before he could kill 3000 American civilians. Do you really believe that civilians like you and I have perfect access to all information concerning leaks of classified information? It's not even worth a discussion, and again, no rabbit trails for me. Nancy Pelosi pot, meet Nancy Pelosi kettle. The basics were all there. I like a strong economy, and dead terrorists.

Fox News often reports them too, that's pretty much the extent of conservative news media. But LOCAL network news sometimes reports local events that aren't as politically correct as the national news likes. Things like black on white crime, it seldom makes it to national news. But white on black crime - big national news every time.As the mainstream media gets more shrill and doubles down with its bias, I expect to see some new conservative news media come into being in the near future. Newsmax seems to be a newcomer, one I haven't had a chance to check out much yet.

You must not read jar's posts much, that's good thinking, I try to avoid reading them too, except for entertainment. But it's hard not to notice one of his favorite pastimes, calling conservative's fascists. Message 3987Message 3989Message 4055Message 4059

(a little unfinished business, something I missed the other day) That's quite a stretch, that would have to mean that any country with those services is a socialist country. That would make it hard to distinguish between all the different forms of government around the world.In the U.S., fire, police, public works etc. are state and local issues. Each of those different municipalities gets to decide everything about how they're administered, how much of them to have, how much they cost etc. Those things vary greatly from state to state, and comparisons can be made in determining which ones are best, concerning decisions by people who might be deciding on where to live or where to move. Practically none of those types of programs are run by the federal government in any way. Because it wouldn't be constitutional. Not centrally made decisions, not socialism.

(one more I missed)"Liberals got women the right to vote"??Looks like the Washington post disagrees with him, and you, on that one.https://www.washingtonpost.com/...e-party-of-womens-suffrageThe 19th Amendment passed when both houses of congress had Republican majorities.

The term "Democracy" isn't in U.S. founding documents, not the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, any of that. The pledge of allegiance is to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, not the democracy for which it stands. There are several examples in U.S. foundings where a majority vote isn't used, a single president can veto something voted on by a majority of congress, and it takes a 3/5ths vote to override a veto. There are other examples. If you want to learn something, see this link;Jeffersonian Perspective: Madison & Jefferson on DemocracyBut if you don't want to learn anything and just want to "destroy", then do your usual and look up some NY Times or Washington Post columns by young college boy liberals, and parrot them here.

That bee is in there for a reason. If the climate change subject was any more than a political power grab, it would have been introduced in a different way, it would be discussed in a different way, and any action to address it would be completely different than the actions (threats) that are discussed today.The subject of global warming, (and climate change, both terms were used) originated decades ago, within the scientific community. But the scientific community didn't publicly introduce it, it was brought into the public eye in the 1990's not by any scientists, but by a biased, non scientist politician, Al Gore. Credentialed people within the scientific community made no forceful effort to supplement or revise what Gore had to say, at least until decades later. It started out only as global warming, and it underwent a pretty sudden, game-changing name change 10 or 15 years ago, to make it much more politically encompassing, and attention getting.So that's red flag number one, it should have been introduced by science, not politics, and it shouldn't have undergone a name change.Now to the discussion part, if it were honest, there would be practically no finger pointing at all. The more people there are on earth, the more human activity there is going to be. The earth's population has increased to about 7.7 billion today, from far less than 1 billion, when fossil fuel use first came into being about 100 years ago. The earth's increase in population in the past 100 years came largely because of the quality of life and human activity brought to us by fossil fuels. Even people in the most impoverished areas have it better, however slightly, because of fossil fuels. If climate change is caused by human activity, then every human alive today is partly responsible for it. Yet, when the poor are excluded from having to take responsibility for it, along with the idle, the very rich, poorer countries, it's quite clear that far less than 50% of the population will be commanded to foot the bill, in money and liberty, for guesses by the scientific community on methods to "fix" it.Now for the actions to address it, have you ever noticed that the organizations that are most vehement against climate change, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, are also the most vehement against nuclear power? It's clean and efficient, but it also can be dangerous. Those 2 organizations aren't the only ones of course, it seems that many who are most concerned about climate change can do a lightening fast 180 and suddenly become safety experts while relegating the climate to a secondary status. It reeks of politics more than climate.Why is it that so many of the big advocates of climate change live lifestyles that are opposite of what they preach? Multiple large homes, yachts, private jets, big suv's. Wouldn't they be leading different lives if they believed what they preached? Or do they think of themselves as superior humans?Now for the main bee-in-pants reason, we have a Democrat presidential candidate, Tom Steyer, who has said that he, if elected, will declare a presidential emergency on day one to address climate change. This is a billionaire, a hedge fund guy, who funded the start ups and current operation of coal burning energy plants. Here's a NY Times piece on him;Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal - The New York Times

quote:

---

As coal linked to Mr. Steyer’s previous investments burns in Asian power plants, he is spending a fortune earned from those investments to pursue a green agenda that would shutter similar plants in the United States.

---

Here's a perfectly similar scenario, a parable; The year is 1858. Slavery is rampant on southern plantations, and people and factory owners in the north are very angry about it. But they use slaves in their factories too! But their slaves don't have to work outside in the hot sun, so that makes it okay. Now a rich, northern factory owner that uses slaves, Tom Steyer, becomes president. He immediately declares a presidential emergency, and orders all slaves in the south to be freed, but doesn't mandate any northern ones, including his own to be freed. He'll do that later, on his own timeline, if he wants. He reserves the right to never free them if he doesn't want to. History tells us that this kind of arrogance can spark wars.I'm sure Bernie Sanders, Warren, and others are very irritated that Steyer is threatening a presidential emergency, if elected. They are too of course, but they want it to be a surprise! Your country, and mine, have been doing it for over 100 years. Is this suddenly the time to mandate major economic changes, and strip liberty and money away from less than 50% of the population? For a goal that cannot be measured or accounted for, since it's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity? Is a war the answer? If the political left doesn't slow down with its propaganda and hate, a war is what we'll have.New free market technology has always brought about societal changes in the past that overcome undesirable qualities of that era's time, and a changeover to renewable energy can happen in the same way if it's given a chance. When the automobile came on the scene and became commonplace 100 years ago, many people resisted, and it was perfectly legal. Horses were still used on many small farms in the 30's and 40's, and the people had the freedom to stay with horses if that's what they wanted. There weren't government mandated flatulence tests for horses - they didn't have license plates hanging on their asses. Horses are recreational possessions today, their usefulness in doing work is obsolete. But they're legal to have. The same could happen with today's older cars, if the government wouldn't meddle. It would be nice if people today didn't have to wonder so much about what government will meddle with next.

Roosevelt said it, and it would be difficult to ask him, but I'd say that it's a detriment to the well being and sustainability of the U.S. to have a confusion of languages, to have more and more inhabitants who know little or nothing of U.S. history and foundings. $22 trillion in debt. And the incentive it gives its receivers to vote for Democrats. Many U.S. soldiers who helped win WW2 were raised in poverty. Rich families? A lot of spoiled kids end up as drug addicts. How well do people do who are raised in families of gay parents? If all these statistics were added up, I think your position would come up short. The biggest problem the U.S. has with illegal immigration is from Mexico and Central America, and Cuba. From socialist / communist governments. And voting for Democrats. "Delight" is a big red flag about climate change in general, climate change advocates simply can't hide it. There is clear enthusiasm among climate change alarmists. They have an obvious incentive to be happy about it, they've made great strides in the past 3 years at increasing fear about it, and the delight is in the political action they hope it brings, either in financial incentives for themselves, or, more commonly, the satisfaction they seek in bringing down successful, active, free people. If you don't understand how a major government takeover of energy production and public use of energy could become corrupted, I'd just ask you to open a history book. But here's a start, the Bill of Rights contains these few phrases, directed at Congress;

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law; ...shall not be infringed; ...No soldier shall;...shall not be violated;... No person shall be held;...shall not be construed

---

U.S. history doesn't seem to indicate that there were scores of people asking "What, what???? Was evidence do founders have to not trust Congress? Are they not elected by the people?" The answer is of course, that they knew something about European history, and about human nature. It means we should very carefully watch government ones. That's all on corruption possibilities, and the cost it could have, for now. I'd like to see if any of my other opponents would care to enlighten you, or pile on me. Could be a nice, additional gauge on liberal dishonesty. I think a greater tipping point will come concerning increasing, unsustainable U.S. debt. Though everyone I ask runs and hides from the question, there's little doubt that one major "solution" to climate change is the discontinuation of the use of older fossil fuel equipment, from lawnmowers, to construction equipment, to older cars and trucks. I don't believe a country with $22 trillion of debt can afford to waste useful products on a huge scale that would be required to make any difference in climate, or satisfy the hate and jealousy of so many idle Americans who orgasm at the thought of new government commands. I'm not feeling as optimistic today, I'd better concede that one.

I'll let that one pass, but thanks for saying it! And 5 green dots too! Yes it did, since you didn't address one bit of it. VERY, VERY GOOD! If the government wouldn't have meddled, the health insurance companies wouldn't have profited from it. I'll be keeping an eye out for another brilliant flash from you, sometime in the next..... 5 years or so I hope.

The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce.Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again. More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.

Because we have no concept of a power-hungry government magically stopping at only taking "some" liberty and money.

"Some" yes, not constantly increasing. Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions. California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades.Just a moment... Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government. That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific;

quote:

---

10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want.

And my answer, yes. Now I would ask you to answer one loaded question from me since I answered yours. That question is; Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt? That would depend on what the definition is of the "basic issue". If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor. I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first? I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up. Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it? Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no.

The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. It was a lie.