Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4226 of 5796 (870140)
01-12-2020 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4191 by RAZD
01-11-2020 12:05 PM


Re: Lame claims
This kind of thinking means that we are not a capitalist country either, because "capitalism" isn't mentioned in the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the pledge of allegiance. SHOCKING!!! Who knew???
Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings.
marc9000 writes:
But 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.
Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved?
THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4191 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 12:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4237 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:04 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 4245 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2020 10:02 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4227 of 5796 (870141)
01-12-2020 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4192 by RAZD
01-11-2020 12:21 PM


Re: Climate Issues
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,
What was causing that?? Too many model T's?
The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more.
With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it?
How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest.
There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S.
It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change.
So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels?
Fear mongering again.
Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4192 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 12:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4238 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:18 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4228 of 5796 (870142)
01-12-2020 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4196 by RAZD
01-11-2020 6:10 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
Just to add to the argument
I can do that!
quote:
Ordinary people like me don't understand climate science, but we can spot cheating a mile away. Without the assistance of a complicit Western media in burying multiple indisputable cases of outright scientific fraud, man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water years ago.
One of the most brazen instances of inexcusable scientific misconduct is documented by photographic evidence gathered during a three-month investigation by a veteran meteorologist. As reported by Dr. David Evans, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed hundreds of official global warming thermometers in locations entirely unsuitable for gathering natural temperatures:
Adjacent to hot engines of parked vehicles
On asphalt-covered roofs
Near hot exhaust vents of air conditioning units
On heat-retaining airport tarmacs and paved parking lots
Next to heat-retaining rock formations and brick buildings
Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so every artificial upward nudge creates a deceptive picture of actual temperatures. To avoid artificially elevated readings, NOAA's own official site location standards require that thermometers be placed at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface, and in a level, open area with natural ground cover. Those standards were clearly subverted, and every voter should demand to know why.
No supporter of man-made global warming theory who sees the photographs in the PDF linked to above — all of which have been downplayed, or outright ignored, by the complicit Western media — can fail to ascertain that the theory they support is being kept on life support by scientific fraud.
2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public
As reported in Forbes, the following unguarded statement was made by one of the climate crisis industry's loudest drum-beaters, the late Dr. Steven Schneider, lead author of numerous alarming U.N. climate reports and former professor of climatology at Stanford:
We need broad-based support to capture the public's imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
In other words, one of the climate crisis lobby's most loyal sycophants told his like-minded colleagues that they not only must conceal evidence that casts doubt on global warming theory, but also craft their research in dishonest ways designed to create terror in the minds of a trusting public. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that dishonesty and concealment of contrarian views have no place in legitimate science.
3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions
As reported by Fox News, a 2015 report published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of actual warming that occurred. Of the 117, only three were roughly accurate, while 114 over-estimated the recorded warming. (The lopsided results suggest that those doing the modeling may have been guilty of using an unscientific technique known as garbage in, garbage out.) On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred.
The wildly inaccurate predictions reported by Nature Climate Change were not alone. In a terrifying May 11, 1982 prediction trumpeted in the Western media, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) decreed that an environmental "tipping point" was closing in: "Earth faces environmental disaster as final as nuclear war by the end of this century unless governments act now." That bone-chilling assessment was seconded seven years later, in July 1989, by another senior U.N. climate official, Noel Brown, who warned: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000." When that tipping point came and went 19 years ago, others were concocted, including one by NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson, who declared in January 2009, "President Obama has just four years to save Earth." As one frantic tipping point after another falls by the wayside, a new one is invented, each of which is breathlessly reported by the complicit Western media.
4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history
In serving as willing propagandists for the climate crisis industry, Western media portray every severe weather event as the "worst ever," which they are now doing regarding the drought in the Southwestern U.S. and the flooding caused by Hurricane Florence. What the alarmists try to hide from voters at all costs are inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history, such as these:
Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it's no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the "worst ever."
The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of the deadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.
Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.
You won't hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history that undermine its "worst ever" claims.
Bottom line: Listed above are four reasons — I have many more — why I will bet my life that "climate change" is a flat-out hoax.
https://www.americanthinker.com/...ge_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
Need more?, there is plenty more.
Climate Change Is A Hoax
Climate Change Hoax Exposed - Cal Thomas
The Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable information
Page not found | The Freedom Pub
Didn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4196 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 6:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4239 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 4:00 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 4240 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2020 4:18 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4241 of 5796 (870176)
01-13-2020 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4235 by RAZD
01-13-2020 1:06 PM


Re: Health Insurance increase due to Republicans preventing Public Option
Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment
marc9000 writes:
I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets:
Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA.
My healthcare increased very little during the entire Bush 43 administration, when it was purely free markets. It stair-stepped up several times shortly after the ACA took effect.
This forum usually requires posters to stay on topic, but this thread is going all over the place here in the Coffee House forum. I do appreciate the lack of stringent topic moderation on this thread, I sometimes like to see discussions wander from one subject to the next. But I'm not interested in basic conservative versus liberal discussions right now. I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4235 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 1:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4250 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:49 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 4242 of 5796 (870177)
01-13-2020 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4237 by RAZD
01-13-2020 3:04 PM


Re: Lame claims
marc9000 writes:
THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help!
Interesting. Am I not allowed to comment on posts not directed at me?
Of course. But one of the many advantages that gangs of posters have against one or two is to try to cover for another poster that they might feel sorry for.
One of the obvious pastimes here, when it's a gang against one, is sometimes to post not so much to respond to the outnumbered one, but to post simply to amuse one's friends and helpers. We see that in gangs against Faith all the time. But a drive-by reader with your worldview might read through here without knowing exactly what was going on, and it's not completely honest to make it look like you were responding to a post to you, when it was to someone else. You could make it more clear with just one or two added names or references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4237 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4246 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2020 10:15 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4247 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2020 12:29 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4305 by Percy, posted 01-17-2020 3:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4243 of 5796 (870178)
01-13-2020 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4238 by RAZD
01-13-2020 3:18 PM


Re: Climate Issues
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,
marc9000 writes:
What was causing that?? Too many model T's?
Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal.
When world population was about 1/7 of what it is today. I wonder why the EPA didn't get busy on this when it was formed in 1970. I guess the reaction would have been the same in 1970 as in 1910, or 1920, or 1980, or 1990. Nothing but laughter, at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms. The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing.
When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes.
Fossil fuels are directly or indirectly behind most ALL technology.
That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century).
From my link in Message 4228;
quote:
Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it's no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the "worst ever."
and;
quote:
The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of the deadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.
Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.
You won't hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history that undermine its "worst ever" claims.
There seems to be a LOT of selective quoting and omissions in the promotion of climate change fear. Just this evening, David Muir of ABC news did a quick mention of how the earths oceans were warmer than they've ever been, but he didn't mention that a significant part of ocean warming comes from the ocean floor, not just the air above it.
When it comes to Darwinism, the scientific community has pretty much always had non-atheists very thoroughly outnumbered. They might not be so lucky when it comes to climatology, and the associated meteorology and astronomy that go along with it. The few links alone that I've already put up in Message 4228 go a long way in covering key omissions by today's climate alarmists.
marc9000 writes:
Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up.
Except one is real and yours is fake alarmism. Chicken Little claiming the sky is going to fall if we do anything to try to hold back climate change.
NosyNed writes:
It is pretty clear now that Florida is a gonner. The whole state. Gone!
And I"M the Chicken Little!! I love this place!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4238 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4248 by NosyNed, posted 01-14-2020 9:18 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4249 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 9:31 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4251 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4244 of 5796 (870179)
01-13-2020 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4239 by RAZD
01-13-2020 4:00 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
I'm sure you can cite a library full of fake denial documents by people who are not climate scientists (like your electrical engineer), none of which cite any real evidence of a hoax.
Yup, you took the bait! I c/p'd detail of only one of those links, where the guy starts out saying he's not a scientist, and you ran with that, without checking the fact that the last link there described a book by Dr. Tim Ball, a 40 year climatologist.
Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious.
Just type "climate change hoax" into google, then type it into yahoo. Big difference in what comes up.
Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?
Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.
Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.
So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
So there's 24 papers you could have cited with an actual (if flawed) scientific basis.
LOL, thanks for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you.
What those 24 papers show however, can offset a LOT of omissions from your 14,000, and most importantly, those and many other writings from non-scientists, (you know, those who can spot fraud a mile away) can address something that most of your 14,000 omit, like what proof do we have that turning all energy production and use over to the U.S. government is going to actually accomplish anything, other than starting a war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4239 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 4:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4253 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4330 of 5796 (870403)
01-18-2020 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4250 by RAZD
01-14-2020 9:49 AM


Re: Health Insurance increase due to Republicans preventing Public Option
During the Bush 43 (Schrubbia) administration there was no requirement to insure those of us with pre-existing conditions. This meant that I could no leave my then current employment without losing my insurance (I was diagnosed with cancer while there) and then paying exorbitant fees (plus high deductibles and co-pays) to cover my cancer ... if I could get anyone to take me. Curiously I call that an extreme increase in healthcare fees AND an infraction on my right to work where I want to.
My cancer story is different - yes I've been there too. A lousy 50/50 insurance plan, and no money. I was diagnosed in late 2012, I remember Buzsaw's death being on my mind at that time. 8 hours of surgery in November, and chemo and radiation all through the first half of 2013. Unable to work my regular (self employed) job, but was able to do some side work in my garage during that time, to help hold down the credit card hemorrhaging somewhat. Applied for some of the social security that I'd been paying into for the previous 40 years, but was told since I wasn't projected to be disabled for a full year, that I couldn't get a dime of it. So I often worked when I was quite sick, re-structured the remaining debt with my good credit, and paid / am paying it. No complaints.
Then I retired and got on medicare, and then the ACA was passed ... and my fees didn't change. That's what would have happened with the public option or with universal single payer medicare4all, but that was blocked by the republicans. ie -- you need to blame the republicans for your high fees, not the ACA or Obama. Sorry not sorry.
I don't know / remember just what stage the ACA was at when I was going through all that. But I was treated quickly and efficiently. Don't think I would have been in another country with its wonderful health care for all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4250 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4341 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2020 11:33 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4398 by Percy, posted 01-22-2020 9:50 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4331 of 5796 (870404)
01-18-2020 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4254 by Percy
01-14-2020 4:58 PM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
marc9000 writes:
"Authoritarian ultranationalism" goes along with the big government beliefs of today's Democrats far more than it does with the individualistic beliefs of Republicans.
This makes no sense. There is no ultranationalism among the Democrats.
quote:
Ultranationalism is an "extreme nationalism that promotes the interest of one state or people above all others", or simply "extreme devotion to one's own nation".
Ultranationalism - Wikipedia
Promotes the climate change interest of one political party, to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used?
Neither is there any authoritarianism. I think you're equating authoritarianism to advocacy of any policy you disagree with.
No, I'm worried about what new authority climate change alarmists want to give to the government. It could very much affect my life personally. Does Trump or Republicans threaten anything in your personal life?
You are buying into a false right wing narrative. That liberals are labeling conservatives fascists is just something David Limbaugh is making it up so he can compose a "no we're not, you are" piece.
Surely you've heard of "Antifa". They are a left wing hate group, that opposes right wing beliefs.
Antifa - Wikipedia(United_States)
marc9000 writes:
...that they only want some power, and will stop when they get only a prescribed amount, that could be true. But it doesn't square with the history of human nature.
Uh, given that both Democrats and Republicans are human, isn't it kind of a stretch to level this charge solely at Democrats?
No, because Republicans don't seek gun control, don't seek to take over energy production and use, don't seek complete government control of health care, on and on and on.
The rural poor who support Trump and Republicans in disproportionate numbers are those most likely to suffer under their policies. The much better health coverage than Obamacare that Trump promised has yet to materialize as even a proposal. The cancelling of many coal mining regulations means that the people of coal mining regions like West Virginia will suffer with increasingly poor water quality, often to unsafe levels. Rolling back clean air regulations means we'll all breath dirtier air. And a rockin' economy doesn't really boost rural areas much but does greatly benefit those already making a great deal of money in urban areas.
Rural area people obviously don't agree with you. They value freedom, and consider themselves able to monitor their own water and air qualities without additional government commands.
You have yet to explain, despite at least a couple inquiries, how trading carbon credits causes money to flow into Democratic coffers.
quote:
Among the facts revealed in Morano’s book are these: The world spends $1 billion a day to prevent global warming; A UN scientist says the 97 percent consensus on global warming was pulled from thin air, presumably hot air from many politicians; scientific organizations claim climate change ‘consensus,’ but have not polled their members; climate policies are not helping, but crushing the world’s poor; The Paris climate accord theoretically postpones global warming by just four years, but will cost $100 trillion if fully implemented;
Climate Change Hoax Exposed - Cal Thomas
also;
quote:
But there's one thing we do know for sure: the majority of people and governments now accept climate change is real and that "something must be done" David Cameron's entire political strategy appears to centre on green' issues, and Margaret Beckett says that "achieving climate security has to be at the core of foreign policy". We also know there is a way to make money out of everyone else's climate convictions and the actions they want to take to cut emissions.
(bolded mine)
https://moneyweek.com/732/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading
The big fallacy here is that officials are elected to serve the people who voted for them and not their entire constituency. Certainly it is true that Trump believes he is the president of those who voted for and support him, and screw everyone else, but Trump's ethical and moral compass has been adrift since long before his election. This is not the way a working democracy functions. Those elected, especially to statewide or national office, serve all their people and must take as a fundamental obligation being a unifying rather than divisive force. Trump doesn't seek to win over those who disagree with him. He seeks to delegitimize and disenfranchise them.
And Obama did?
Obama Tells Republicans to 'Sit in Back' | Fox News
and;
Power and Control: Obama: We Will Bankrupt You
Which of these do you see as selfish desires: Decent healthcare? Security in old age? A clean environment? National Parks that aren't sliced up for resource exploitation? Addressing climate change? Safe food and drugs? Fair labor practices? Decent housing? Affordable public transportation? Meaningful oversight of industry? Green energy? Affordable higher education?
All of them. Democrats and their constituents want them, and want someone else to pay for them.
Seriously? You think the driving force is jealousy of Republicans? Really?
YES. Not only the rich ones, but the poor ones who, nevertheless, enjoy satisfying, FREE, productive lives.
You just said that Republican voters are hard working and personally responsible, while Democratic voters are idle. This is almost repugnantly cynical.
marc9000 writes:
So many of them don't care about liberty, they take no advantage of the liberty that is available to them.
Why do you feel moved to say such absurd things?
I know it's not politically correct, but I see evidence for it. Democrat strongholds include the slums of LA, San Francisco, Chicago, NY City.
Is this truly your view of the average Democratic voter? If so, where are you getting your information from?
Most people who have ever lived in this world have lived in bondage. In Democrat voters, I see people who take this country's liberty for granted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4254 by Percy, posted 01-14-2020 4:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4333 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2020 10:50 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 4409 by Percy, posted 01-22-2020 1:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4332 of 5796 (870405)
01-18-2020 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4255 by Percy
01-14-2020 5:23 PM


Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
The news media controls who the FBI, CIA and DoJ investigate now? Who knew!
They don't control who they investigate, they control how much the public will be informed about those investigations. Speaking of news media omissions, have you heard about the lawsuit settlement to the Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, from CNN, who made assumptions and lied about just who confronted who? It didn't seem to make the news much. I heard about it at Fox news.
When it did get a quick mention, as we can see from this link, dances were done about just what CNN did.
You just cited an opinion piece.
And you never do that?
What corruption did Hunter Biden commit that requires investigation? Please be specific and precise.
quote:
6. James and Hunter Biden sought to monetize off Joe Biden’s political standing.
In 2006, close to when Joe Biden assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launched his second presidential campaign, James and Hunter Biden purchased a hedge fund called Paradigm Global Advisors. Although neither man had a strong background in finance, James and Hunter Biden reportedly believed they could leverage Joe Biden’s political connections to their benefits.
That's just one of several.
Eight Things to Know About the Biden Family's Culture of Corruption
You have a million excuses. I have a great idea for you. If you don't have facts behind what you say, don't say it.
Political discussions are about opinions, your constant proclamations about a future socialist utopia aren't fact based.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4255 by Percy, posted 01-14-2020 5:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4420 by Percy, posted 01-22-2020 2:21 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4500 of 5796 (870787)
01-24-2020 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4420 by Percy
01-22-2020 2:21 PM


Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
(combining / condensing several messages)
marc9000 writes:
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.
It's less an argument and more just food for thought. Where does one draw the line between the services government should provide and those that should remain in the private sector.
The 10th amendment answers that question. The federal government's services are limited and defined, the states are much more unlimited and undefined. Each state makes those decisions according its political processes, then the differing ways that each state does things can be compared to each other.
One major difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives list of essential services is much shorter than the liberal.
Goes along with liberty and limited government, yes. And individual responsibility.
You recently mentioned the cost of healthcare, making it seem like you think it should be a service government is involved in providing in some way or to some degree.
quote:
President Harry S Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund in 1945.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965.
A brief history of Medicare in America | medicareresources.org
I don't know if an ISSUE VOTE was taken concerning those two acts, but if not, then I think the 10th amendment was violated. But since those two things were done so long ago, and the healthcare industry immediately modified how they did things because of them, it's clear that all government involvement with healthcare can't be reversed overnight. I'm just about always in favor of stopping government involvement where it is at present and let free markets better and better adjust to it.
Another of your favorite themes is an overintrusive government. In urban areas water and sewer is provided by the city, but in the country it's provided by each individual home owner. When the government inspects your well and shuts it down because of unsafe arsenic levels, is that an overbearing government or a lifesaving one?
An overbearing government. A homeowner's senses, in this case taste buds, should be the judge of unsafe levels of anything. Governments never ending appetite to invade private property and "shut things down" is a big reason liberals want more gun control. Armed government shut-down inspectors tend to lose some of their arrogance when the public is armed.
____________________
On vacation recently one of our Uber drivers was from Central America and was studying for his citizenship test. Can you name the original 13 colonies without using the Internet? He can.
So one unusual example makes something a general rule?
So for you the national debt is a reason for not providing assistance to refugees and those granted asylum. Is it also a reason for not building the wall? Or is it actually just an excuse for not spending money on anything you're against?
I see unsustainable debt as a far greater threat to U.S. security than microscopic, natural changes in weather.
You've run off the rails again. This is about wealth or lack thereof, not parent's sexual preferences. Let's say that your implication that children of gay parents were true (it isn't, of course). That has nothing to do with the influence of wealth on the future success of offspring.
We have different opinions on what effects redistribution of earnings have on a society, versus what effects of constantly eroding morals have on a society.
You're lost the plot again. The particular country isn't relevant to the point. You said that Roosevelt's rationale for not discriminating against citizens of foreign origin was that they should not have come here to escape problems in their home countries, and yet the major waves of immigration into the US from the late 1800's until the Depression were from Ireland, Italy and Eastern Europe, a period during which Roosevelt made the comment you quoted. These immigrants came to the US because of poor conditions in their home countries.
The particular country IS relevant to the point, because Mexico / central America is where we currently have the most problems with illegal immigration.
Explaining anything to you causes two additional things to be misunderstood or misconstrued. Progress is never possible.
Well take heart! this and one more will be my last messages in this thread. I'll be posting more in the climate change thread, you'll have more progress challenges there, if you care to take part.
Immigrants can't vote until they're citizens, which takes a minimum of five years. That being said, a 2012 Pew Research study found that 31% of Latino illegals identify as Democrat and only 4% as Republican. That breakdown has nothing to do with government benefits since illegals aren't eligible for any.
quote:
A FAIR study in 2017 found illegal immigrants are a net consumer of taxpayer benefits worth more than $100 billion a year, not including the cost of enforcing the border.
Most illegal immigrants in US receive government benefits, costing taxpayers billions: experts | Fox News
and;
quote:
The Green Light Bill, which passed the Senate 33-29 Monday and was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, allows illegal immigrants to obtain standard state driver’s licenses that can be used for identification and to board domestic flights.
But it is also the sole document required to register to vote, according to officials.
Loophole in law granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses could lead to voter fraud
You're just one big bundle of prejudices. If climate change is false then it will be shown false by science, not by your willingness to make up nasty things about anyone who holds opinions different from yours.
The scientific community is a FACTION, as described in Federalist #10. Factions don't have special political power in the U.S. A faction doesn't have the right to point to the opinions of scientists from foreign countries, and demand that those opinions influence U.S. political decisions.
You're making things up again. No one is proposing "a major government takeover of energy production" and use of that energy.
So there are no propositions for government to get involved in fossil fuel use to combat climate change? (I'll have more questions like this in the climate change thread)
Using reductio ad absurdum this time, we know that nothing is immune from corruption. If you're right that the possibility of corruption is a reason for not doing something then we should never do anything. But never doing anything isn't possible. Therefore your reasoning is wrong.
My reasoning is that we learn from history. And from U.S. foundings, that strongly suggest that government involvement in as little as possible is the best way to keep corruption at a minimum.
You are very confused. Only the first amendment is directed solely at Congress. The second and ninth apply to all three branches. The third applies to the executive branch, because that's where the Defense Department resides. The fourth and fifth also apply to the executive branch, because that's where law enforcement resides.
But they all apply to congress! Congress is the only one of the three branches that MAKES laws, and is therefore the biggest threat.
Trump's charity had nothing to do with the government. Are you even reading what you're responding to? And you've lost the plot again. We were talking about corruption, and my point, since it apparently has to be explained, is that even well meaning entities like charities whose purpose is to lessen human suffering can be corrupt. Fortunately there's some oversight for charities, they have some reporting requirements, which is how Trump got caught.
EVERY entity has more oversight concerning corruption than does government, especially at higher (federal) levels.
_________________________________
You're off in la-la land again. Neither nationalism nor ultranationalism has anything to do with climate change, and there are no serious proposals for the government "to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used."
When I get going in the climate change thread again, I'd like to know how new proposals for the government to get involved in fighting climate change will happen without doing anything involving fossil fuels.
Was government in Pittsburgh in the 1940's alarmist when they instituted changes to clean the air after too many days like this? Was the government too authoritarian? This image was taken around noontime:
No it wasn't, because this is something people can see with their own eyes. There is a world of difference in problems people can experience with their own senses, versus charts and graphs shown to them by a faction. Especially a faction that is heavily influenced by foreign interests.
Climate change has already affected millions of lives personally, and the numbers will only go up, and they already include you. Here's what the EPA says about how Kentucky's climate has already changed at What Climate Change Means for Kentucky:
It has not affected me personally, I guess you and I have different definitions of the word "personally". I don't think "personally" includes being emotionally frightened by a faction. When I cast my eyes to the Kentucky sky, I see the same sky I saw 50 years ago.
No, Republcans don't seek anything as sensible and rational as gun control. They seek to control women's actual bodies. What's next, adultery and sodomy laws?
You're acting like being against abortion is a brand new thing. That debate's been raging for decades. Maybe Republicans are making some new headway - maybe the morality they promote makes logical sense sometimes.
Well I see you've learned your Trump lesson well, just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. No one on the left is seeking a government takeover of energy production and use.
Pot, meet kettle, you've said that three times now. You've never heard of "climate emergency!!!!!!", you've never heard all the other cries to "do something about fossil fuels!!!!" or if you have, you're saying the government has no plans to involve itself in fossil fuel use?
"Complete government control" is an exaggeration, but socialized medicine is widespread around the world providing people with what should be a basic human right, access to healthcare. You of all people should know that. What would have become of you had you had no insurance instead of 50/50?
I paid for that insurance all by myself. What the insurance paid this time still didn't amount to all the premiums I've paid since I've been working full time since age 18.
Once again your answer has nothing to do with the question. How does trading carbon credits cause money to flow into Democratic coffers?
It doesn't take a huge number of rich Democrats to influence Democrat coffers, just those few in the right business.
quote:
Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype
You can get the straight story here, and it includes working video: Analysis | The repeated claim that Obama ‘vowed’ to bankrupt coal plants
Despite what you told me some time back, I can't get access to the Washington Post, unless I give them money, which I won't do of course.
What you say is very strange. If Democrats were truly jealous of Republicans they'd just become Republicans.
No, that would involve being personally responsible, and working hard. I've personally seen many Democrats who seem to have an allergy to those things.
Again, where are you getting your information from that Democrats seek to avoid work and live off government handouts?
If they wanted to work hard, they wouldn't support a political party that seeks to take more of their earnings from them to give to others who don't work.
(one more later tonight)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4420 by Percy, posted 01-22-2020 2:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4555 by Percy, posted 01-25-2020 5:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4508 of 5796 (870796)
01-24-2020 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4420 by Percy
01-22-2020 2:21 PM


Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
And what investigations would those be that the news media isn't telling us about?
quote:
Naturally, we’re talking about one of the most disgusting crimes a politician can make considering the implications of such a disgusting act. However, none of these networks have provided any kind of coverage regarding this horrible case.
Liberal Media Shows Disgusting Bias As Coverage Of Sentenced Democrat Refused - Conservative Daily Post
It's very common for the mainstream news media to completely ignore, or report only very briefly, Democrat shenanigans.
You just cited an opinion piece.
marc9000 writes:
And you never do that?
As factual support? No, of course not. You're a good Trumpist, accusing others of what you do yourself.
Looks to me like you imply factual support in your cited opinion pieces. I can't see any difference in how you distinguish between what you consider factual reporting and the opinion pieces you link to, any differently than I do.
Message 4053
Message 4123
Message 4145
Message 4304
Message 4369
Message 4392
You're a good Trumpist, accusing others of what you do yourself.
Oh the irony.
And there's more detail at The Biden family’s strange business history, a more trustworthy source. Seems like Hunter has a long history of trying to cash in on his father's name and political connections, and there's suspicion of fraud. I find that despicable, but is this the corruption you want investigated? It doesn't have anything to do with the Ukraine, and the statute of limitations has passed, so I don't see why you care.
The Biden's involvement with Ukraine was what Trump justifiably called attention to, I care about the news media's double standard - when the Steele Dossier implicated Trump, all the questions are about Trump, when Trump implicated the Biden's, all the questions are about Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4420 by Percy, posted 01-22-2020 2:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4558 by Percy, posted 01-26-2020 8:16 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4566 of 5796 (870942)
01-26-2020 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4537 by Faith
01-25-2020 2:07 PM


Re: Trump's Tweet in Farsi Much "Liked" in Iran
You treat me as if I were the only one with my point of view, but that's only true within EvC, and even here there are a couple others who more or less share my point of view at least occasionally or on certain subjects. But I get most of my stuff from the many voices "out there" including information about the intelligence services I mentioned. These voices represent some sixty three million people who voted for Trump. I'm only alone in here. And it does get very lonely at times.
They do try very hard here to make this forum look like it represents mainstream America, don't they? This place represents 15, maybe 20% of political beliefs in the U.S., no more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4537 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 2:07 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4582 by JonF, posted 01-26-2020 10:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024